In 16-17: UChicago will Have EA, ED, EDII, and RD

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
81

The ranking data linked to is from 1983-2007. I’m talking about now – when U of C is tied for 4th with Stanford and Columbia in the USNWR rankings. I’m also talking about a moment in which smart, hard-working, intellectually-ambitious people who believe that education (not simply credentials but knowledge/competence/ability) will play a crucial role in their life chances may be less enamored of Harvard or Yale than previous generations and more appreciative of Chicago (to the extent that it offers/remains a genuine alternative to the farms for Excellent Sheep).

You can compete by playing to your own strengths (while minimizing your weaknesses) – which is what I think Chicago has been doing successfully in recent years – or you can try to beat the leaders at their own game. I don’t think Chicago is going to become richer or more famous than Harvard in the next 30-40 years (or even the next century – if ever). I do think it’s on the verge of being recognized as a preferable alternative to HYPS for some very desirable students (who are more likely to be Stakhanovites than snowflakes), a small fraction of whom will do something amazing and/or make tons of money and who will be grateful to UofC for fostering their talents. And tuition is already high enough that a substantial group of undergrads will come in affluent and probably stay that way. So that kind of stable donor base is already in the mix.

82

Hello friends.

I hardly think I’m sensitive about Chicago criticism. I have posted in earlier times that I had a certain pride in the fact that Chicago was in the outlier group with MIT and Caltech. I am actually the sort of alum who generally worries about bringing too many “regular” people to Chicago–I was worried when they changed the Core, and I was worried when the started taking the Common App (in the Ted O’Neill administration, BTW). I was wrong–changing the Core and taking the Common App didn’t destroy Chicago. I don’t know if these new changes are right or wrong, and I don’t really have an opinion either way. I only advocate for the proposition that the changes seem rational, and that they won’t destroy the essential character of Chicago.

Question for thought: Are folks who would go to HYPS for the same aid that is deemed insufficient from Chicago, and/or who declare Chicago unaffordable upon receipt of more dollars at a lower-tier school (where relative merit may look better)–are these the most credible oracles to opine on what is or is not the true essence of Chicago?

Alas, I bloviate, but a few other reactions:

“Show me the stats on the socioeconomic status of those that apply ED. Show me the stats on the socioeconomic status of the accepted ED students.”

“But to say that ED does not favor savvy wealthy families is wrong. Their strategy is all about increasing yield and increasing wealthier students. To present it as a win-win situation is disingenuous.”

Comment: If the point is that ED skews higher on the socioeconomic scale, then we have no disagreement. In my earlier post, I indicated that this is a correlation/causation issue. To avoid repeating what I’d said before, the summary of my view is that ED-income skew results from information about the process, and not wealth. People in the college rat race (Palo Alto, Edina, Westchester, Fairfax County, plus privates) know that the ED is a high preference–nearly 4:1 vis-a-vis regular at some places (more on this below). That knowledge drives ED applications. It happens that those applications tend to come from wealthier families.

ED may change some things, but it seems to maximize utility for the school, while giving students more choices. I don’t see how characterizing that is disingenuous. The prospective “losers,” in my view, are borderline Chicago candidates. ED may make Chicago more attractive to almost-HYPS SCEA candidates (people who Chicago currently loses to Columbia and Penn, etc.). If the applicant pool thus becomes more competitive, then that’s a great result from the school’s perspective.

And, again, I am aware of no evidence that Chicago will back away from its commitment to meet demonstrated need for admitted students. Thus, my view is that it’s disingenuous to suggest that ED is an elitist tool any more than a 36 on the ACT shows that the ACT is an elitist tool–standardized test scores also correlate with income, right?. Or is that a different kind of poor?

“I feel we can disagree with some admissions practices. Sending junk mail to kids with a 0.1% chance of admission, as when several kids at my school (with SAT scores ranging from the 1600s to 2300s) started getting pamphlets in the mail, is a transparent effort to drum up applications for the rankings’ sake.”

Comment: Amen to disagreement. But the results of my one-household sample suggests that Chicago actually does a pretty good job. Point (1): There remain people, even those who have succumbed to the madness, who do not understand Chicago’s place in the constellation, or the characteristics that make it unique. One can find testimonials on CC or among families that mail was a difference maker. Point (2): My own humble evaluation is that Chicago’s pitch is more nuanced than some. In this cycle (HS junior), the HYP mailings sort of take the approach “you can’t get in unless you apply, so why not apply?” By contrast, Chicago’s letter is more like “we just want to make sure that Chicago is on your radar.” Someone may actually care about rejecting as many people as possible, but the other side of the coin is that expanding the candidate population will raise the quality of the pool and its admits–including from less wealthy/1st generation “reach” candidates, who might also not have the best metrics. Hard to find fault with that.

“Chicago is gambling that a significant majority will choose ED2,” and ED1 vs. ED2.

I don’t see this–instead, I see that the real impact will be at the ED1 level. My pet theory is that Columbia is the overall target for this move. Columbia maintains a very low admit rate and very high test scores, and they seem to do it by cherry-picking in the ED round from among those who (often sensibly, I bet) chose to forego an SCEA app to HYPS. Columbia has the strongest ED preference among the Ivies comparing the ratio of ED admit rate to regular round admit rate, calculated as follows: I made a simple spreadsheet with ED Apps/ED Admits/Apps Reviewed in Regular Round/Admits from regular round. To keep things simple, I made the assumption that all ED candidates not admitted were deferred to the regular round–of course that’s not actually true, because some candidates get rejected early. For Class of 2019, Columbia had 36,250 total apps/3,373 ED apps/2,222 overall admits/573 ED admits. So, there were 35,677 apps considered in the regular round (Total Apps minus ED Admits) for 1,647 places (Total Admits minus ED Admits). The ED admit rate was 17.8 percent (573/2,222), while the regular round rate was 4.6 percent (1,647/35,677). Thus the early preference rate is just under 3.9 (17.8 Early rate/4.6 Regular rate). That’s the highest ratio for an ED Ivy by a pretty good margin (Penn 3.53; Dartmouth 3.17; Brown 3.03; and Cornell 2.0). Also notable is that Penn (with Columbia, the most Chicago-like ED Ivy) is next. Just like SCEA early admits, Columbia and Penn appear to grab the cream of nearly indistinguishable crop.

Two ways this could be thought of from Chicago’s perspective:

  1. Gains access to top candidates outside the HYPS realm (who Chicago loses to in cross-admit battles by a wide margin), which will level the field re Columbia and Penn (much more winnable as a cross-admit, and thus Columbia/Penn candidates might be swayed by Chicago ED). Admit/attendee pool is stronger by comparison to former system (never were going to get HYPSers, so it was a cross-admit battle against Columbia/Penn/Brown, etc., regular admits and/or a financial aid battle with next-tier schools (Emory, Wash U., Vanderbilt). Very careful to note here that this is in the market evaluation of students/their parents/their personal coaches. The "next-tier" schools are spectacular, just as Chicago is spectacular even when considered with HYPS.
  2. With access to stronger early candidates (including, yes, some who can pay), the College can sweeten the pot for its very best candidates, something that may start to expand the circle to HYPSC (have my doubts). And if it comes down to equally special snowflakes in the admit process, then it would be hard to begrudge the school for selecting more kids who can pay.

First and foremost, getting the very best students through the door seems to be the primary consideration. So, for a case where only one can be selected, if Kid X, who needs aid, is better than Richie Rich, who can pay, then a top school would be foolish to admit Richie. But, if Richie was as good (or maybe even better) than Kid X, then the school would be foolish to admit Kid X–the avoided aid spend could be used to lure bigger prizes.

I note that I just might be the parent of a Kid X candidate, and that’s ok by me.

83

I am going to start a thread about why we see so much unhappiness and grousing about Chicago’s college admit strategy, compared to what I see in forums for other schools. Parents and students at other schools don’t seem to complain about their schools as much here on CC :slight_smile:

It’s not like Chicago is doing something radically different from other schools, yet somehow folks on this forum seem to complain a lot more than students and parents in other college forums. at least here on CC :slight_smile:

Maybe that is a complement to the peculiar trait of the readers of this forum, maybe it is some other reason. Maybe I am just imagining things :slight_smile:

Would love to hear others perspective on this.

84

I think people value Chicago for being distinctive and tend to resist what they see as attempts to make it more mainstream. (Throw in controversy re what Chicago’s distinctive characteristics are and you get more argument.). I also think Chicago positions itself as a place for critical thinkers which means it attracts people who like to argue/analyze and that at least some of them believe that the school might yield to reason/see the error of its ways (or that skeptics within the community might be persuaded of the merits of a decision if a credible justification were presented).

I wouldn’t characterize these conversations as evidence or examples of unhappiness, grousing, or complaining so much as discussion/debate.

It’s probably also the case that Chicago’s an institution in transition right now and so people feel like something significant may be at stake in what might otherwise appear to be mundane bureaucratic decisions.

85

^ Well put. Now I have to get back to work. I miss day dreaming about my Tesla.

86

I think part of the negativity is that this is a major change that came without warning to a class that has had so many changes such as ACT, SAT, AP tests, Common App-Coalition App, etc etc etc. With it being a totally new concept no one really has an idea what the percentages will be and if ED will get a huge benefit or not. Will legacies have to apply ED to get extra consideration? How will that affect the rest of us? I do know that if you apply EA and get deferred you can’t switch over to ED2. If my daughter, who is also probably applying to Penn and Columbia so definitely one this was aimed to attract, doesn’t get in here EA since she can’t do ED2 she may ED2 to Swarthmore, Pomona, or Harvey Mudd. It really depends on all the EA results and potential scholarship offers and if she wants to wait it out for the few Ivies she likes. After last year I’m just assuming if she doesn’t get in EA it’s not worth sticking around since ED2 won’t be an option. I have a now 2nd year at UChicago and though we are happy with his financial aid I worry that things in that regard may be changing. Before I felt like it was pretty likely she would go to UChicago but now I think it’s less likely. She likes all her top schools pretty equally. Our income is straight forward and we are OK with her doing ED2 somewhere based on the calculators which were incredibly accurate for his acceptances. We are probably considered upper middle class but we saved to have the amount of our EFC. No Tesla, vacations, or other fun stuff because we are still slogging away at the 529 goal amounts.

87

In terms of using ED to select wealthier admits I would assume it has to be true to some extent perhaps for yield amongst those wealthier admits. My son was admitted EA and we went to a number of receptions and noticed a huge percentage of the other admits were from well known private schools. Clearly those families were almost all wealthy and UChicago knows it. A lot of the wealthy kids he knows have small merit scholarships. Investing in those merit scholarships that make the wealthy parents feel better about paying almost full price may have been a better idea than this ED scheme if they just want more close to full pay families.

88

For those of you that are still hanging on to this discussion (admittedly, I’m getting weary of it too):

From Katherine Cohen in her book The Truth About Getting In-

"In an article in The Atlantic Monthly devoted to college admissions, James Fallows has attacked the early decision program, arguing that although there are many incentives for a student to apply early, there are even more incentives for colleges to encourage early applicants:

  1. Colleges want enthusiastic students who identify them as their number-one choice- it boosts campus morale and gives schools a much better indication of a students likelihood of accepting their admissions offer.
  2. Early decision facilitates the college's enrollment planning, so that the college does not overshoot or undershoot it's incoming class.
  3. Early decision improves the college's selectivity and yield , raising the college's US News and World Report ranking.
  4. Early decision knocks out the competition for applicants who might otherwise be applying to other selective schools.
  5. Early decision reduces the financial aid burdens of the college, because the college can lock a student into a certain package before the student has a chance to compare it to packages offered by other schools"

She continues… “Not only does this foster a competitive environment among college’s- as a loss in rank can easily translate into a loss of alumni donations- but, according to Fallows, ED programs are also by nature elitist. They tend to favor legacy applicants, wealthy candidates who can afford not to wait for offers of financial aid from other institutions, and students whose high schools are already well staffed and connected enough to encourage students to apply early in the first place. In addition, besides favoring well-heeled students with established connections to the corridors of power, binding ED programs encourage competition among students, further alienating them from the underlying goal of their adolescent years: education, both academic and emotional. Finally, ED programs contribute to the myth that only a small number of highly selective colleges in America are capable of providing an excellent undergraduate education…”

89

Well, I’m not sure Dr. Cohen is the most compelling spokesperson on this topic:

  1. Think the most recent version of her book is from 2003, which I think was before the most selective colleges were fully committed to meeting all demonstrated need.
  2. She was the subject of a 2001 New York magazine article, entitled "The $28,995 Tutor.." Read the article and see if fulminations about programs "favoring well-heeled students with established connections to the corridors of power" are credible.
  3. In a 2013 article in the Huffington Post, she indicates the early applications are good for some candidates, and does not mention financial considerations in her list of early application drawbacks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kat-cohen/the-truth-about-applying-_1_b_4070821.html

There may be an information advantage that can be exploited, because ED admit rates are significantly higher–probably for items (1) through (4) on the list Cohen attributes to Fallows. None of those reasons are objectionable. In my view, Item (5) on the list may be correct in a general sense, it is invalid at the very top schools, because they will meet demonstrated need. Those who are able to exploit the information advantage are those who are more intensely focused on the process (i.e. they know that it’s three times more likely to be admitted ED at some places). Those people tend to be wealthier. Colleges have tried to mitigate the information advantage by doing more to reach less traditional candidates (a reason to not complain about getting so much mail from colleges). Colleges also mitigate any negative effect by granting preferences for those who may not be aware of the ED advantage, such as 1st generation students or students from groups who are not well-represented. These preferences are sometimes very substantial. Schools also likely cap ED at a certain level to ensure that it gets a more balanced class.

ED is not evil, and ED will not prevent your child from going to a good college. Pretty much anyone on CC knows about the ED advantage, and thus has no basis to claim a disadvantage. I am aware of zero credible evidence that a student has not been able to attend a college that meets demonstrated need–doesn’t take too much thought to recognize the PR disaster for the affected school if there was such evidence. Moreover, ED is independent of the aid calculation for a particular student. If you get in, the school will meet demonstrated need, so perhaps its best to focus on getting in. If ED favors the rich/elites in the aggregate, then it might actually be good for aid recipients who can get in–more paying customers means more money for merit aid above need for the most worthy candidates. The real complaint underlying the noise might just be that ED will improve overall admit pool quality, and that might prevent others from getting in, or it may dial back merit aid toward the demonstrated need level for some of those who do get in. Caution is likely appropriate before complaining on those grounds.

90

Below from What Worms For The Early Bird by Avery, Fairbanks, Zeckhauser ( Harvard Univ. Faculty Research Working Paper Series:

The college admissions system has developed over time into a complex and formal set of procedures. Within this highly complicated process, early admissions has been growing steadily in importance over the past two decades, accounting for between one-fifth and three-quarters of matriculants at the elite colleges we studied. The early admissions game is played by most selective colleges and by hundreds of thousands of students each year. Despite the importance of early admissions, there is wide variation among participants in the system in terms of information and how they believe the system works. Students, who pass through the system but once, are those most likely to be confused. Some do not even realize that they are facing a strategic situation.
Two clear conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, as Roth and Xing have discovered in other markets, the college admissions process is moving forward in time. This is due not so much to a change in the application dates, but rather because a greater proportion of applicants is applying and getting accepted early. Second, as predicted by theoretical considerations and confirmed by our empirical results, colleges set lower standards for early than regular applicants. This will induce students to apply early in increasing percentages as they come to understand the workings of the system, and witness the actions and experiences of more of their peers and recent predecessors.
The early applications system is currently in flux because of major rule changes by Brown, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale between 1995 and today and at other colleges throughout the country. College admissions officers, high school counselors, and student applicants express anxiety about whether the system will continue to creep earlier. Yet, as “helpless” defectors in a complex Prisoners’ Dilemma, these individual actors bolster the forces that lead colleges collectively to rush the admissions season. Despite numerous disadvantages to the participants, there are some real gains to elite colleges from early admissions, and some applicants are advantaged at the expense of others. Yet all might prefer an outcome with later applications and admission decisions.

91

Yes, of course Cohen advises to do ED. If I were a college advisor to well heeled applicants I would do the same- give all the options with advantages and disadvantages. She also laments in her book that all colleges should do away with the myriad of confusing options because it’s getting insane.

92

We used early programs for both of my kids to their first choice reach schools. It worked great. But only after much research and analysis regarding academic, social and financial fit.

I guess that it was cool to come across UChicago’s old admissions policy of EA or RD. I really respected them for that. I really liked that the EA was non binding. You know, gave a little more time to figure things out without feeling pressured. But times change, I get that.

But now I have to pick up my Tesla from the shop, run over to the property management company that handles my vacation home and I’m tired and grumpy because my personal trainer upped my routine and my aesthetician (you know where I get my Botox treatments) told me I had to stop my daily soy latte- something about it wreaking havoc on my skin.

93

“But now I have to pick up my Tesla from the shop, run over to the property management company that handles my vacation home and I’m tired and grumpy because my personal trainer upped my routine and my aesthetician (you know where I get my Botox treatments) told me I had to stop my daily soy latte- something about it wreaking havoc on my skin.”

i can’t tell if this is a humble-brag, or just a really witty critique of postmodernity.

94

Answering a question from early in this thread, U of Miami in FL also offers EA, ED1, ED2, & RD. Apologies if this college was already memtioned.

95

@AfricanStudent32 she’s saying only the wealthy who live such lavish lifestyles would like this ED change. That’s not actually her

96

You would have to read the entire thread to get this… About the Tesla…

It’s all in good fun…

97

Case Western also offers ED, ED2, EA and regular ddecision.

98

So I guess this is an indication that Nondorf sees that admissions stats have hit a wall (despite having higher SATs than HYPSM, a 7% admit rate, and 66% yield). So in order to further increase stats, he’s got to change up the strategy, even if it’s risky, sounds kind of silly, and could very well damage the University’s reputation. Personally, I think it’s a bunch of rubbish. It’s a dangerous kind of expansionism that can only lead to crisis.

99

@phuriku This is a strategy to lower financial aid expenses. Pure and simple. Without having to abandon their need blind status. I don’t think it’s really about yield or admit rate primarily. That’s just icing on the cake

100

I never considered that, but I highly doubt that’s the primary objective here. Let’s wait and see if ED’s admit rate will be higher than EA. I’m guessing it will be (and significantly so), and that admissions will (obfuscatingly) chalk it up to higher quality in the ED pool.