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

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
101

I dont know… I think I like this change.

ED is easier and cheaper to operationalize. Cost savings can go to more scholarships and targeted marketing. Let’s face it, UChicago needs to put money where it can get the best results.

ED gets rid of nuisance applicants who are qualified and will be accepted at SHYP but would throw in a UChicago app anyway just for kicks.
ED gets rid of nuisance applicants who are qualified and accepted to UChicago and Columbia but the latter got them by the balls
ED relegates the applicants who are Ivy brand ho’s and dont really get UChicago to RD

ED/ED2/RD/EA gives the school ability to further segment using psychographic data rather than often-faulty demographic data

ED moves the school’s cool factor up (its not quite obvious but too much customer power provided by EA actually reduces “cool factor”) and thats the only way to becoming a permanent top 3

Better segmentation and targeting = better student cohorts = better short term and long term financial performance = preserving what is unique about UChicago

102

F Sratford’s analysis is the one that makes sense to me. The University has always longed to admit first and foremost the students who unequivocally long for the education it offers. ED, as I understand it, is a way for the University to identify those students. I hope and believe that it is not just a stratagem to pick the pockets of those who demonstrate by this choice that they truly want to come to the U. of C. These are the applicants who should get every break because they are the ones the University wants and needs.

But as for financial aid, the student (or student’s family) who decides on choice of school on the basis of the best financial package at the “best” school has my understanding but not my admiration. Such students should obviously pick another option, and I am happy for such options to be available. I can’t say that I can fathom all the gamesmanship these options may involve, nor do I think much of the attempt of applicants to do this. However, in the real world (something Chicago is famous for analyzing) such gamesmanship is to be expected. There is nothing inherently wrong with strategizing financially and arbitraging one’s choices. No doubt students who do not have the University of Chicago as their first choice can nevertheless grow to love of the place. There is room for them when it comes to the short strokes of filling out the roster. They are like the neutral angels in Dante’s Hell - though with the possibility of ascending to greater understanding through experience. However, the true believers are the ones who ought to come first. I hope they will be appropriately awarded financially, but I am not so sure that that’s what it’s all about. I myself always worked part-time jobs and summer jobs during my years at the University. I thought of such work as part of my education. I would highly recommend it to any student, especially a serious one who truly valued the education he or she was receiving.

103

It’s funny. I buy that ED logic for Northwestern (though it still wouldn’t explain ED2). As I see it, Northwestern is a school that lots of kids really love and many more would happily settle for. So it makes sense for Northwestern to find the kids for whom they are “the one” and admit them rather than the kids who would be settling. But I feel that way about Northwestern because I see it as a kind of all things to all (upper middle class white?) people school – you don’t have to be a brainiac, but if you do well, you’re competitive for top grad programs; you can be a serious jock if that’s your thing; there’s Greek life if you want it, it’s avoidable if you don’t; it’s on top of a great city but in an affluent suburb. There’s a wide range of course offerings and good pre-professional opportunities (engineering, BA/MD).

To me, Chicago is much more of a niche school – and it’s a place where the ethos is such that kids who aren’t down with the program are likely to be miserable or where, if you admit lots of those kids, the ethos will have to change. Northwestern doesn’t need the most intellectual students (or even the smartest and hardest-working) kids in its pool to keep being Northwestern. Chicago kind of does. And a significant proportion of those kids will ultimately choose Chicago even if they have alternatives.

ED2 by definition doesn’t identify “true believers” and the true believers can and have applied EA – they don’t need ED1. ED1 (vs EA) is an enticement primarily to affluent kids with borderline credentials who hope they’ll get a boost. If the U of C admissions folks were unable to sort the true believers in the EA pool from the bet-hedgers, I might look at it differently, but I haven’t seen any indication that that was a problem. Wasn’t the claim that an exceptionally high percentage of EA kids accepted this year (prior to RD announcements) and that’s what made the RD admission rate so low?

104

I’m a simple fellow, exacademic. I don’t see why the University would not want to know with certainty that some of its applicants regard it as their first choice. The admissions people may be good at guessing this under an EA option. But why should they be required to guess? And why shouldn’t an applicant lay his cards on the table? Perhaps it is a personal preference of my own, but I like seeing youngsters think hard about things and make choices at the outset of life. I like commitment. I am less impressed by an eternal wavering of talented but uncommitted youngsters among various advantageous options. If this means that some true believers are admitted even though they are a bit shy of the qualifications that the waverers might have, I am perfectly O.K. with that. It seems to me that the ED option would favor the rich kids only if scholarship awards are in fact less generous for the ED admittees. I don’t know this to be the case, and I hope it is not the case. Do you have real information that it is the case?

105

I want critical thinkers and they usually consider alternatives before becoming believers. I’ve also been shocked to discover how little students and their families seem to know about the colleges they apply to. Seems like people often focus on the details post-submissions. And, to me, the difference between deciding Nov 1st vs. May 1st isn’t the difference between commitment and eternal wavering. It’s often the difference between gamesmanship and informed consent.

No FA experience or data. What I’ve read (and heard from friends) is that different schools make different offers and that people with multiple offers do sometimes succeed in getting more from their first choice schools if the initial offer isn’t enough to make the school affordable.

106

Well, if one doesn’t focus on details until after submitting an application, then that doesn’t seem to reflect top-notch critical thinking. The notion that Chicago candidates were considering alternatives also doesn’t seem quite right. More like they became believers after they were rejected by their HYPS alternatives. Agree that Chicago is a bit of a niche school. If someone has the critical thinking skills to figure that out, then it’s sensible that one can be rewarded for that with ED admission.

107

They focus on big picture re where to apply and then details re where to enroll. That’s a rational approach when admissions are highly selective and there’s uncertainty about what your actually available alternatives are. Especially when time and money are constraints.

But yeah, we clearly value different things in an applicant. And have different perspectives on how kids today are actually making these choices.

108

So, are these the only universities left in the US News Top 30 or so that don’t offer restrictive EA or ED: MIT, Cal Tech, Berkeley, USC, UCLA, UVA, Michigan, UNC? And, most LACs do ED these days, right? Are there any LACs in the top 30 or so that don’t offer ED? (I did not see any in a quick google search…)

I have to admire those few privates, MIT, Cal Tech, and USC, for feeling confident enough, in their yield, their finances, and the enthusiasm of their applicants, to not have to offer ED or restricted EA. I don’t blame Chicago, however, for wanting to get a better sense of which students are really excited and committed to the school, since most of its peer universities already have that advantage, along with yield and possible financial planning benefits.

I do think a lot of kids will still apply to Chicago EA or RD as a backup to HYPSM or to wait to compare competing fin aid offers, but ED1 and ED2 will define the kids who are genuinely interested in Chicago. And, a lot of kids (including my own) really appreciate ED at schools they like, for the early notification, possible admissions advantage, and the hope of not having to complete a ton of extra applications. For someone who loves Chicago, ED1 (and ED2) are great options.

Full disclosure: No one in my family has attended Chicago, but my high school son received tons of quirky mailings from Chicago during the past two years, and, on several occasions, his college counselor strongly suggested that he apply. She seemed to think he would mesh well there. In the end, he did not apply, only because he decided to take the engineering/comp sci route, instead of math/science in a liberal arts school. Too bad Chicago doesn’t offer engineering. (He ended up at Cornell RD.)

This is the only CC thread about Chicago that I have read recently. It caught my eye, because, in researching Chicago with my son last year, I remember thinking it was somehow refreshing that Chicago still just offered regular EA and RD.

Chicago will certainly be giving kids a nice variety of application alternatives this year. (Of course, some families will probably still find reasons to complain!) I kind of like how the Admissions Director at Chicago seems bold and likes to try different tactics. The mailings my son received were certainly unique. Maybe the Director can slightly reduce the marketing costs of those mailings by nailing down a larger portion of the freshman class earlier each year.

109

^^Thoughtful post MOM.

110

EA gives kids who are genuinely interested all of the advantages of ED and more. You can treat it like ED (hold back on other applications, accept immediately and have the whole thing resolved by December) or you can wait, visit, compare offers. And U of C’s peer institutions typically don’t do ED – they do SCEA or EA.

Variety isn’t inherently nice in this context. The simpler system is more humane.

111

Chicago will still offer EA to those who want it. It has not disappeared for those who prefer more time to evaluate & analyze options.

Also, I think that the SCEA & EA schools are not Chicago’s only private college peers. Many kids who apply to HYPSM will also apply to other Ivies, Duke, Wash U, Northwestern, Vandy, JHU, Notre Dame, etc, plus top LACS, all of which now have ED. Many kids choose these other schools over Chicago for various reasons. Many smart kids will also choose their in-state public universities over Chicago, even though they were accepted. Having lived in a number of syates, I’ve seen that happen a lot with UVA, Michigan, UCB, UCLA, UT, etc.

Thus, while Chicago is a great school. I believe that it does have other “peers” in the competitive college market outside HYPSM. Maybe the Admissions Director recognizes that & sees new ED offerings as a new way to attract intellectual students who are completely qualified but are also smart enough to know early that Chicago is wonderful, without waiting for decisions from HYPSM & others.

Unfortunately, kids & parents start evaluating colleges earlier in HS these days. Many know what they want by Nov 1 and are willing to take the ED plunge. I also prefer EA as a parent, but I totally get why many colleges and kids like ED. Chicago is offering both, which is terrific for both early deciders and longer-term thinkers.

112

Presumably those kids (i.e. the ones who are completely qualified and know what they wanted early) were already in Chicago’s EA pool. I really do think that all you gain by adding ED is risk-averse full-pay kids who figure that their best shot at ending up in a top tier school is Chicago with a thumb on the scale. And kids that got rejected SCEA and assume that they therefore missed their shot at HYPS (that’s the ED2 pool). Neither demographic strikes me as more worthy/desirable than the rest of the kids in the RD pool or the kids in the EA pool.

113

Ok, I’ll bite. Explain this to me like I am a four year old. Why?

Because I am just not seeing why a student who is willing to pay top dollar for Chicago or someone for whom Chicago was 2nd choice but now has become her first choice and is willing to pay top dollar, is less worthy or desirable than somebody who tells Chicago “I may come, I may not come. I just don’t know. Wow me Chicago and throw a lot of money at me, otherwise I will go elsewhere”. I am going to assume that this RD kid is “quirky and smart in the quintessential Chicago way” to make the argument easier to make.

That brings me to another interesting question. Why is being risk averse such a bad thing? I am risk averse when I fly and drive. Men and women are risk averse when they date and marry. We are risk averse when we travel to other countries. So why not be risk averse when you choose your college? The RD kid is also quite risk averse, she wants to see all her options before deciding which one is best. That to me is the very definition of risk averse. Such a student wants to leave nothing to chance.

So the only “non-risk averse” kids in the college application process are kids that only apply to extreme reaches without any safeties. They are really taking extremely risky decisions. And we all know how we feel about such kids.

Everybody else is actually quite risk averse, not just the rich full pay kid.

I think that the word we should perhaps be using is “Traditional and/or pre-professional kid” instead of “risk-averse” kid. Isn’t that who we are talking about here?

If that is the case, lets talk about why having an abundance of “Traditional and/or pre-professional kids” at a University is not good for the culture of that university, because history seems to suggest otherwise.

114

Prior poster says: “I really do think that all you gain by adding ED is risk-averse full-pay kids who figure that their best shot at ending up in a top tier school is Chicago with a thumb on the scale.”

Hmmm. I would rather paint them as early adopters.

We would actually want early adopters, because they are higher quality admits. Whether or not they are risk averse (want to increase their chances by applying to UChicago ED) or risk loving (willing to reduce their number applications to great schools by committing early to UChicago). None of these early adopters would be walking on campus on day 1 still pining for Princeton. They would be happy where they are and ready to engage with their peers. And perish the thought - they are not going to have lower SATS or GPAs.

I would also argue that early adopters deserve to get an extra point for doing their due diligence early. Who knows, these kids may learn the value of commitment - its risks and its rewards. (as opposed to the risk and reward of waiting, which is also another one of life’s lessons.)

115

Again, the early adopters or true believers are already in Chicago’s EA pool. You don’t need ED to lure them in. And the “Chicago is my second choice” folks are already in Chicago’s RD pool.

What adding ED does is entice full pay kids who are borderline into the pool, in the hope that they’ll get an edge. And/or on the assumption that U of C will be the easiest of the highly selective schools to get into and probably the only one they really have a shot at.

I get that Chicago may need more full pay kids, but if there’s a new quota to be filled let’s at least fill it with the right full pay kids. And there’s no reason to believe they’ll be the ED kids. And, no, I’m not worried about GPAs or test scores. I’m concerned about Chicago ceasing to be a place where most kids believe that it’s important to do the reading before seminar. And that it’s fun to talk about what you’re reading. “Life of the mind” types are relatively rare, even among high stats kids.

I think Chicago’s current admissions process does a decent job of finding and enrolling those kids. If I were going to tweak the existing process, I wouldn’t add ED; I’d just say that you can’t apply EA to Chicago if you’ve applied ED elsewhere. That’d resolve a lot of the “are we really your first choice?” ambiguity, if that’s really an issue, and it wouldn’t waste time on the applications of kids who aren’t matriculating even if admitted.

116

I see what you mean. The ones who are worse off are the true believers who could have been ED early adopters but have to apply EA because of financial constraints combined with a healthy skepticism of the university’s process to calculate their real financial need. These are the EA applicants who treat EA as if it was ED (never apply anywhere else, cancel all apps once admitted). Hopefully, the university will still be able to spot them and accept them just like they do now (since they so far have been very good at it per your assertion).

117

There is one other type of student that is going to lose with this move and unfortunately we fall into this category. There are some combined state BS/MD programs that make their decisions in early March but which require you to submit applications by November. These programs are unique and extremely competitive.

Anybody applying to these programs cannot apply either ED or Ed2 to Chicago. When EA was the only early option, such a student had a fighting chance to get into Chicago in case they were also applying to these programs but did not get in. Now they stand little chance of admission because I expect the EA admit rate to be dismal. Chicago would have been our top pick but now there is little chance of making it work.

We would have been full pay so would have preferred REA, but understand that the ED/ED2 route is much more financially rewarding for the school. Oh well c’est la vie.

118

Actually think that @FStratford’s point is the better one here. Chicago’s EA preference rate was pretty soft; maybe 1.2-1.5X overall rate–similar to MIT numbers, rather than the approximately 2x-4x SCEA advantage at HYPS. That suggests that the EA pool may not have been as strong, something that seems reasonable to me. In the prior scheme, although EA at Chicago was non-binding, an early application prevented one from applying to HYPS, and required withdrawal of a Chicago EA application (and potential offer of admission) if the student was admitted ED anywhere else.

As a general matter, I make the reasonable assumption that the best candidates are within the SCEA pool, although I wonder that the overall ED round pool (limited to non-HYP Ivies and, perhaps, Williams, Amherst, and Pomona) might be stronger. Regardless, Chicago didn’t have access to those candidates until the regular round. Chicago has not yet consistently won cross-admits from HYPS, and previously had no idea if ED candidates might rank Chicago higher than Columbia, Penn, etc.

ED does, indeed, put a thumb on the scale, which is a market incentive for someone to become an early adopter. From the university’s perspective, it seems like a win if it can attract: (1) some strong candidates who would have applied SCEA but for the absence of Chicago ED (e.g. for a strong candidate–prefer a 80% chance of Chicago ED vs. a 40% chance of HYPS SCEA); (2) Some great ED candidates who would have previously made calculation #1 in favor of Columbia, etc.

119

Is the Chicago EA pool weaker on average than the SCEA pools? Probably. Even so, acceptance rates aren’t necessarily the best measure of the quality of Chicago’s EA pool. Chicago’s EA pool is much larger than the SCEA groups - over 10,000 applicants last fall. Admitting EA students at a clip comparable to HYPS SCEA rates would fill 90% of Chicago’s class before the RD cycle rolls around.

120

That’s interesting. But there’s a whole lot of difference between colleges that don’t offer any early option at all (Cal, UCLA), and colleges that offer unrestricted EA (MIT, Caltech,USC). There’s not so much difference between the latter group and the many, many colleges (but not so many in the top 30) that offer rolling admissions (which is what Michigan did until recently, even though it was clear it has a de facto EA program). I think it also makes a lot of difference to students whether a college releases its early determinations before (most of the above) or after (Virginia) the due date for applying to competitive institutions.

I am also not sure why people care so much about the restriction that some non-HYPS colleges put on their EA program: that you can’t have applied ED somewhere else simultaneously (but simultaneous EA applications are alright). It is interesting to note that, arguably, none of the colleges listed above who offer EA has strong ED competitors, except for Virginia and Michigan, and in Virginia’s case it would find out about ED acceptances well before it released its early actions. Chicago certainly has strong ED competitors. Over half the kids I know who have applied EA to Chicago had simultaneous ED applications elsewhere, including Columbia, Penn, Brown, and Northwestern.

Also, the list of top-30 colleges that DO offer unrestricted EA is even shorter than that – because it excludes the two UCs and still includes Chicago.