First year of ED, we’ll see what happens next year and if the ED rate comes down a bit.
@Much2learn to answer your original question, yes it seems that the RD rate was around 2%. What is more interesting about the RD vs the ED is that they had ALL the RD applications when they did the ED2 round (they were due on the same date), and yet seemed to accept the same amount in ED2 as ED1. Either the ED2 applicants were very strong (which I suspect they were as a bunch were probably HYPS deferrals) or they just liked the fact they were early decision.
@tk21769 I guess the 10K I just sent Zimmer made up for your $15 …
@cu123 “Either the ED2 applicants were very strong (which I suspect they were as a bunch were probably HYPS deferrals) or they just liked the fact they were early decision.”
Interesting. From a Game Theory perspective, if being the only top school with ED 2 allowed Chicago to clean up with outstanding students, they may drive some of the others to follow suit. It seems like it would improve your class until more peers follow suit. Then one of them will offer ED 3 and the cycle begins again. lol
Penn used ED to move up in the rankings without the university changing at all. They played the ED/yield game and now are highly selective, so any criticism of Chicago by Penn should read the story about the pot and black kettle. See article below, old but relevant.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/the-early-decision-racket/302280/
BTW, if it’s not clear, ED benefits colleges, the test prep industry, college consulting industry but hurts the student.
@Penn95 see post 164. He has a point …
Yes, but here’s the rub: it’s very easy to be reductionist and say nobody should apply SCEA without a hook. We were told as much. In the end DD said effit, went SCEA and got into el dream school. How do you know whether this strategy makes sense or is a waste of a good ED ticket? There’s no manual, no map, no completely disinterested and unbiased third party that can tell you. Part of selective college admissions is guts.
@keiekei There are always exceptions to the rule, and I have to assume your DD got in SCEA vs SCEA deferred than accepted RD, which is quite different. BTW I don’t call it guts I call it luck, a ton more of unlucky ones than lucky ones. Finally this is just a way to increase your chances not some foolproof way to get into a top college.
Yes SCEA as in “one and done in December.” To elaborate on what I meant by guts: the ability 1) to assess one’s own strength as a candidate, 2) to hear what all the self-styled experts say so that you know the terrible, terrible odds, and then 3) to believe in yourself and go for it anyway. This entire package, in a viable unhooked candidate, I would not reduce to mere luck. The reason I mention this is there are no doubt equally viable candidates who tapped out at step 3) and went ED elsewhere. So, apart from an applicant’s viability, there is a self-belief component in our current system, given the risk/reward tradeoffs of SCEA vs. ED for top unhooked students.
I would say this, frankly, going to top SCEA school or a top ED school isn’t going to make much difference, but I’m sure your DD was a very top student to get in SCEA.
@theloniusmonk you are very mistaken for saying that Penn rose up the rankings without the university changing at all. The rise in the rankings came under the tenure of President Judith Rodin, who actually transformed the university in all aspects: bolstered research, the liberal arts, the cohesiveness of the university, infrastructure, mended the bad relationship Penn had with the surrounding community. Sure Penn used ED to boost its yield and one of Rodin’s main goals was for Penn to rise in the college rankings and in the rankings of as many fields as possible, but this was not achieved through just gaming. The main part was dramatic changes done at Penn during this time.
Also I don’t think it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Taking 50-55% of the class early is not the same as taking 75-80% of the class early, and having EA, ED, EDII.
@CU123 To be sure there are many great opportunities at the top ED schools. My point wasn’t that SCEA schools are necessarily “better” in an absolute sense, but that there are definitely cases even for unhooked students where forgoing ED for SCEA or just RD is a reasonable strategy. I would agree with @PurpleTitan that in the majority of cases, this is demonstrably not a good idea (just look at the results), but not in every case. And the ability to assess one’s own situation dispassionately and make an intelligent decision is itself a characteristic that is self-selecting. In DD’s case I felt that this process was extremely valuable for her regardless of the results on the SCEA school—if she hadn’t gone for it, she would always have wondered, and maybe that would have led her to doubt herself more in the future. Having said that, this decision was made with reasonable assurances from a trustworthy GC that she would likely do well in the regular round. For a different kid, prudence may be the better part of valor.
Decreasing the admit rate wouldn’t bring about much of an increase in the USNews rankings, since admit rate is worth just 1.25% of the total score. And USNews doesn’t consider yield at all.
Now, if they were bringing in kids with higher test scores (worth ~8% of the total USNews score), that might bring some upward movement.