<p>OK, so one thing I have been very curious about is--what is the official target size of the College today in the eyes of the University Admin? So I asked someone, who would know if any one would. The official answer was 1,400 incoming students. So that's approximately 5,600 students over a 4-year period. (Yes, there are some transfer students--20 this year--which make things a bit larger, but some students also graduate early, etc. so they approximately cancel each other out.) </p>
<p>Obviously, this year's class will be larger. But the goal is 1,400 (which the admissions office also confirmed earlier in its blog.)</p>
<p>Quarterly enrollment figures for about the past ten years can be seen here.</p>
<p>Interesting, truth123. If 1400 was the target, with 3344 accepted, Admissions was expecting a ~42% yield. Recent history might suggest that as reasonable, given the preceding couple of years were ~40%ish, give-or-take. From that point of view, the flub is a little more understandable (that is, if it was a flub and not the fingerprint of some deeper game in play, about which we can only speculate).</p>
<p>On the other hand, one would have hoped that a bit of brainstorming by the Admissions team, which factored in the page 1 #5 ranking in USNWR, along with Harvard and Princeton re-instituting early programs, would have led Nondorf & Co. to suspect a higher yield and admitted based on a possible 44-45% yield, planning to manage a possible shortfall (if they were wrong to the downside) via the waitlist.</p>
<p>They appear to have had no provision for being wrong to the upside. Poor risk control. Let’s see how administration handles the overflow, and what they do in next year’s admissions cycle. Perhaps it won’t be as dire as some posters are suggesting. Of course, it could be even worse.</p>
<p>Spike9 - the only problem is, last year’s class was over-enrolled by ~50 or so, so this year’s target class size was supposed to be SMALLER than 1400. (At least, that’s what was stated publicly by the admin.)</p>
<p>So, say U of C publicly wanted a class of 1300-1350 this year. They accepted 3344 students. With about a 39-40% yield (slightly lower than last year), you could get a class of 1300-1350 out of 3344 admits. </p>
<p>It seems strange that U of C was predicting that yield would be so stagnant or would actually drop a bit from last year. </p>
<p>Also, to be really conservative, the school could just admit a fewer number of people, and then take from the waitlist as needed.</p>
<p>Since U of C didn’t do that, it doesn’t seem like they were really pushing for a smaller class this year to compensate for the overly large class last year.</p>
<p>Overall, it just looks like needlessly poor planning.</p>
<p>I asked this person, “What is the target size of the College these days? 5,000? 5,400? 6,000?” The answer was 1,400 incoming students.</p>
<p>I didn’t ask exactly when the target size became 1,400 rather than 1,300 or 1,350 or whatever it was in recent years. But I imagine it was probably this year.</p>
<p>However, the source did say that University has no plans to increase the College beyond that. The bump this year was an anomaly because of the increased yield, but the goal is to return to 1,400 in the future.</p>
<p>Housing issues aside, the University is aware that the College is gaining in selectivity in comparison with the Ivies, a trend this person said they expect will continue and accelerate. They don’t want to undermine that by just opening the floodgates to a massive number of students.</p>
<p>Well part of the increase in yield was due to Harvard and Princeton reinstating SCEA. Granted Chicago wasn’t the only school to underestimate the effects of that on yield but it was pretty obvious that there was going to be some increase in yield because of that. The uncertainty due to the effects of Harvard and Princeton’s SCEA should have made the admissions office very conservative and plan to rely heavily on the waitlist.</p>
<p>Interesting that last time H / P had SCEA UChicago’s yield was lower–maybe mid-30s? I’d have to check the figures. Shows you how much ground UChicago has gained since then.</p>
<p>Chicago has definitely gained a lot of ground in the past couple years. Since then I think most elite colleges have seen some increases in yield although not nearly as much as Chicago.</p>
<p>The first-year target size has to be 1300 maximum starting next year, because of the need to demolish Pierce. With 1525 or so entering in the Fall, Pierce cannot be demolished in July 2013. Otherwise, there will be too many of Class 2016 and others forced out of dorms. So the proposed Pierce demolition will have to be delayed one year until July 2014. After class 2017, the target size may have to go below 1300 without Pierce and with using I-house and New Grad as temporary overflow into graduate housing for four years.</p>
<p>Anyone who officially says that there is a target size of 1400, including the admissions director, may be out a job.</p>