Actually there are a lot of private schools that are cut out now… like Northeastern, GW, Fordham etc … lots of students would apply EA to those schools as well as Penn ED … then when they were accepted to Penn call and withdraw their apps… this is beneficial to those schools bc they also get large volumes of students applying (and they most likely would accept the students also applying to Penn) so this lets those schools have a more true yield … this lets those schools offer their EA students more merit if the Penn ED kids are not in the pile…
@runswimyoga That’s true, but the question is why is Penn doing this. Penn could have continued with its old ED policy for these schools. I suspect Penn is going this for its own benefit. It really isn’t concerned about how it’s policy benefits other schools. The question is what is that benefit for Penn or what issue are they trying to fix?
I guess they were getting EA admits from other schools like UChicago, MIT, and Caltech with better financial aid offers than the Penn ED offers and they were having to match them or let the applicant loose? Honestly though it couldn’t have been that many if it was even that. My kid went from a very likely Penn ED candidate to quite possibly not applying at all. I think UChicago and Penn are playing a game with each other and the winner is going to be Columbia. With all the changes poor class of 17 has had I wish these schools would have held off another year on all these EA/ED changes.
I agree that it can’t be too many students playing the EA financial aid game over ED. Why would Penn’s financial aid be so much less than Chicago or MIT? (although Chicago does give merit aid) Still, it’s probably a handful - why change their whole policy? There’s got to be another reason Penn did this. All I can think of is that they want to reduce their ED applications and acceptances because they were criticized for filling 54% of their class with ED kids. But I’m not happy with that guess - I think it’s more than that. But I can’t imagine what. All I can say is that it will hurt the students, and my guess is that ED applications are definitely going to drop this year for Penn.
I think that both Columbia and UChicago benefit at UPenn’s expense.
Before UChicago changed its policy, she was thinking either Columbia or UPenn ED, plus UChicago EA. After UChicago changed its policy, all three became ED possibilities, but Chicago still provides an EA option, so no matter what UChicago was still going to receive an application. With UPenn’s change, UPenn has dropped out of the ED possibilities.
It is nonsense to play the game in the art of admissions for elite colleges. If UPenn has her own confidences in providing exceptional qualities in both liberty and practical educations, she may just do the SCEA and RD. Playing the games for both accept and yield rates may not improve her prestigious, the unique and robust education will do. I believe UPenn is on the right-track, she really does not need to play the game as other schools.
Why would Penn’s financial aid be so much less than Chicago or MIT? (although Chicago does give merit aid)
The problem is not that Penn’s aid is less. Some students just use it as an excuse to get out of ED and join MIT or Chicago.
This restrictive ED looks like game-playing, pure and simple. Further, I’m not sure why Penn would do this - it undoubtedly gets great candidates who also are competitive at Chicago and MIT EA, but end up at Penn. Restrictive ED can only serve to LOWER the level of talent in the ED pool, as some great candidates will be turned off by the new policy, and won’t apply ED.
Can any of the posters knowledgeable about Penn present a reason for the change? @Penn95 and @“45 Percenter”, what do you think?
Both MIT and UChicago defer vast majority of applicants during EA. So EA at both does not offer much advantage. anyway.
I have no idea why the change… can’t even speculate.
I kind of feel though since Penn and U Chicago are two vastly different schools w completely different vibes and approaches, If this precludes you from applying to Penn- then you truly were not an ED candidate (someone who is sure Penn is their first choice) but rather a regular decision candidate… Thats just my opinion.
Most of the kids I met who applied to both ED chose Penn over U Chicago -as Penn was always their first choice and Chicago was just a back up.
@runswimyoga - there’s no strategic decision for Penn to do this, then, right?
Even if a student applies to Chicago or MIT or Caltech EA, if they apply to Penn ED, 99% of the time, they’ll go to UPenn. So why would Penn care if the ED accept was really a regular decision candidate in thinking?
Again, I’d like to hear the views of those that are quite knowledgeable about Penn and post often about it - @Penn95 and @“45 Percenter”
@Cue7 IMO they are more concerned strategically w MIT.
I did hear of 2 acceptances this year to MIT and Penn ED and they chose MIT. Penn’s yield rate was all time high this year at 68-69% only lower than Harvard (80%) and MIT’s (74%) …
You really can’t directly compare yield rates of college with EA vs. those with ED. An EA college can likely bump up its yield several points by switching completely to ED. If Chicago only had ED, it would easily pass Penn.
For that matter, you also can’t directly compare an unrestricted EA system (MIT, CalTech, UChicago) with the Single Choice EA systems practiced by HYPS. I think that HYPS would lose a few yield percentage points if they went to unrestricted EA.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Chicago’s yield next year with the addition of ED1/ED2.
@runswimyoga - really? You think Penn is worried about MIT in the ED round? Penn’s ED yield rate is generally between 98-99%. Of the, say, 1250 students who get ED offers, like 1230 matriculate.
You think that Penn went to restrictive ED - a move that is both puzzling and generates negative buzz - because it’s really concerned where those 15-20 students a year are going? With Penn going restrictive ED, students debating between Penn and MIT are now more likely NOT to apply ED to Penn. The ED pool at Penn will most likely weaken.
Let’s turn your argument around - Penn may lose, what, 3 or 4 ED admits to MIT a year? By allowing ED students to apply EA to MIT, Penn actually GAINS talented applicants. Further, it’s very likely that MIT loses handfuls of EA accepts to Penn ED - these students might really like MIT, and Penn is their second choice, but since they got into Penn ED, they are bound to attend.
I don’t really see how this helps Penn at all - it creates negative buzz and looks like Penn is playing games. Further, it might only increase ED yield by what? 0.4%?
I don’t think this is the issue Penn is trying to fix here, because even if both these are indeed true, Penn may still have a problem. Penn is not worrying about losing kids to just MIT or Chicago. They are worried about losing kids to HYPS.
And allowing kids to apply to MIT and/or UChicago EA may be fueling this problem for them.
A certain number of students may be using the “financial aid not enough” escape hatch and an admit from a school like UChicago or MIT as a safety parachute to go after the most prestigious college they can get into. They can now bail from Penn and try to get into HYPS at Penn’s expense. If everything else fails, they still land at a good school. These kids may be applying to Penn just to boost their admission chances even if it is not their absolute top choice because they really don’t want to risk an SCEA application to HYPS. So they choose an Ivy like Penn with a relatively high ED admit rate in the hopes that they will make it in. It’s a risk mitigation strategy in an admission environment where there is too much unpredictability in where a student might get admitted.
For such kids, using the finance escape hatch right after they get a nod from an MIT or UChicago is a way to have their cake and eat it too. They can’t just apply EA to these schools. The admit rate for EA schools is not close to the 23%-25% at a school like Penn (Yeah, I know that the real admit rate for unhooked candidates may be lower, but these students may not realize that). Once they get an admit from a top 10 school, they could go school shopping for even more prestige by throwing a Hail Mary pass at HYPS. They can’t do that now. Penn just took away their parachute. Now a student would have to think really carefully if they want to turn down their ED acceptance. If they turn it down, they have so safety net in case they get rejected at HYPS.
For whatever reason, Penn is finding that their ED pool is not giving them a near 100% yield. Prestige shopping by some students using the EA admit safety net may be the reason.
Of course, I am just speculating here, but I can’t think of any other rational reason to bar the EA applications.
@VeryLuckyParent It makes some sense. It is fair. A lot of accepted ED students have good shot at HYPSM, especially Wharton students. .
@VeryLuckyParent - here’s the reason your argument does NOT make sense: Penn’s ED yield rate is about as high as you can get (98-99%). Even if you have a binding admissions agreement, AND you’re the most coveted school in the world, yield will never get to 100%. Some students decide to take gap years, others have unexpected events that compel time away, etc.
Penn’s ED yield is as high as it’ll ever be. Next year, with restrictive ED, Penn will probably lose some MIT or Chicago-caliber students in its ED pool, and the yield will probably be the same, for the reasons I describe above - the difficulty of getting 100% of 1250 students to attend.
@VeryLuckyParent I have actually heard kids talk about that idea, so you may be on to something there.
@Cue7 You obvi know much more than I do… so I will defer to you on all of this …but why don’t you just call and ask them? I’m sure someone would be glad to offer you an explanation…
@runswimyoga - hah! I’m an alum of both Chicago and Penn, and I assure you that no significant “insider” information is shared between admissions offices and their general alumni base. I’ve called both admissions offices in the past, and attended info sessions for both schools, and only receive the company line. Some scraps of information may be shared with either students or those with higher levels of access to alumni admissions committees (of which I have none). That’s why I posted here - seeking posters who have this info.
@VeryLuckyParent makes a good point - that prestige-chasing students may turn down Penn for MIT or Chicago early (as these three schools are all at about the same level, or, in some circles, Chicago and MIT are more coveted), and THEN these students take a stab at Harvard et. al RD. The problem with this analysis, though, is that the numbers don’t back it up. Any given year, there are what, maybe 6 or 7 students TOTAL who play this game? It doesn’t seem like enough to create a policy with negative buzz.
I’m still baffled by the change, and it drops Penn’s admissions office in my eyes. I was a significant opponent to ED generally, and having RESTRICTIVE ED is just worse. Further, it just weakens the quality of the ED pool, all to chase what, a 0.3% bump in ED yield?
The cynic in me says that, yes, Penn is that prestige-conscious and that concerned about yield that they’re willing to make such a negative, restrictive move. They are so frightened of losing the 3-4 kids to MIT, and the 1-2 kids to Chicago in the ED round each year, that they’re willing to create a new policy to bump up yield, at the COST of a less talented ED applicant pool. It smacks of bad gamesmanship. To me, it makes Chicago (with EA, and ED1 and ED2) and Penn (with restrictive ED) the worst in terms of admissions practices.
This may be a by-product of both schools being arguably the most insecure when it comes to admissions at this level. As opposed to MIT (or Columbia, or Stanford), these two schools are relative newcomers to ultra-competitive admissions. Penn only became selective at the top run 10-12 years ago, and at Chicago, it’s only been at this level for 4-5 years.
On the flip side, kudos to MIT and Cal Tech for refusing to play the game!
I am afraid you are underestimating this number by a lot. These schools are getting a lot of international students from countries (I will let you guess which ones) where prestige is absolute king and its either Harvard or bust. Nothing else really matters. But they can’t just apply SCEA to Harvard. They need a two tier safety net (in relative prestige terms) on the quest to get into Harvard. Penn is the first tier because of its high ED acceptance rate, and Chicago is the second tier safety net, for when they abandon Penn and jump for HYPS. If they fall, one of these nets catches them.
Prestige trumps everything for these students and they are not a minuscule number.