I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend that this year’s yield is 83%.
That doesn’t surprise me. Several of the tippy top colleges are right around that number. Some special interest colleges such as the Naval Academy and Berea also have very high yields.
@Groundwork22 - Navy and Berea are probably not comparable. Which other tippy tops are you referring to?
Does yield have any meaning for a school that relies mostly on ED and ED2? Shouldn’t its yield be approaching 100%? What happened to the other 17%? Still room for improvement?
Harvard and Stanford were both > 80% in 2017 (probably still are)
Brigham Young too, I believe.
I didn’t mean to imply that only tippy tops have those yields, only that >80% is not unheard of.
I did not take from OP’s post any implied comparison with other schools. Posters with allegiances to other schools and/or some animus against the University of Chicago tend to make that comparison. The more apt comparison might be with the U of C yield stats from previous years in which EDs 1 and 2 existed. If memory serves, the stat last year was 79 percent. What has accounted then for the increase this year? Is it merely that the EDs collectively make up a greater portion of the class this year than last? Or could it be that the general attractiveness of the University is growing? The latter could certainly be the case, little as the Chicago detractors would ever acknowledge it. Of course greater attractiveness could account for a greater number of highly qualified applicants making Chicago their first choice either in the first instance (ED1) or the second (ED2), and it could also have led to Chicago upping its game in the cross-admit wars with its peers in the RD round. The latter conclusion was asserted in another thread by a poster who appeared to have inside information. If these present stats don’t exactly prove that case, they are in any event consistent with it.
Why all the UChicago admission “data” are based on rumors and whispers? What about these “data” that made them unfit to be examined by the public? Are the public supposed to believe all the rumors and make comparison between them? UChicago graduates are proud of their critical thinking skills, how come some of them on this board seem to lack some of those skills?
So, @1NJParent , if you are making the point that more information should be public, I’m not especially disagreeing with you. The reasons for not releasing certain information may be good or may not be good. I’m agnostic. But if information has not been released, how is it showing a lack of critical skills to evaluate, ponder and speculate on the basis of what is actually known? Your conclusion that doing that shows a lack of skills is a non-sequitur. General Grant, lacking perfect data on the movements of enemy troops, did the best he could with what he had. Critical skills are most challenged when the data is least definitive. Definitive data is rather a bore in any event.
@Groundwork2022 - you keep bringing up schools with near 100% tuition assistance for a good number - if not all - of the class. Those aren’t really comparable. Granted, > 80% isn’t “unheard of”. Other than H, S, and specialized institutions, which others were you thinking of? Since you originally mentioned “tippy top”, a list of those would be helpful.
@NJParent, the reason the yield isn’t 100% is that UChicago doesn’t admit 100% of the class via ED1/ED2. Of the 1743 or so who have enrolled, perhaps 1100 (700 from ED1, 400 from ED2) are binding. That leaves 643 matriculants, out of the 1,000 who were admitted EA or RD. That’s a bit over 64% yield. Sure, there’s room for improvement, as UChicago admitted them and would have been thrilled had they attended. However, that would have been another over-subscribed class. The current incoming number of 1700-1750 works better for housing and the College’s overall stated goals. Also, not sure any of this is “secret” as many schools haven’t released their yield data yet. University of Chicago is holding a series of Launchpad receptions at this time and undoubtedly the “rumor” came from there.
“If memory serves, the stat last year was 79 percent.”
- it was 77%, per the profile page for Class of '22 https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/class-2022-profile
“What has accounted then for the increase this year? Is it merely that the EDs collectively make up a greater portion of the class this year than last? Or could it be that the general attractiveness of the University is growing?”
- Stuff like admit rate and yield are really driven by application numbers. UChicago wouldn't have been able to improve these over that they realized from the initial year of ED if the application numbers hadn't been increasing the past two cycles. Many if not most top schools are seeing the same so this isn't something unique to UChicago. But as to the question on general attractiveness, the answer in the numbers says Yes, general attractiveness of the university is, indeed, growing.
"Of course greater attractiveness could account for a greater number of highly qualified applicants making Chicago their first choice either in the first instance (ED1) or the second (ED2), and it could also have led to Chicago upping its game in the cross-admit wars with its peers in the RD round. "
- Given that UChicago offered a waitlisted candidate money if he committed (as his mom reported not too long ago), they are w/o doubt upping their game to bring in at least some of those non-binding candidates. As for ED1/ED2, they seem to be getting sufficient pools of those applicants to make a good selection w/o having to increase their representation of the admitted class. For instance, the number of early applications this cycle jumped 15% and Early is when they see - and admit - the largest # of ED's. And there is no evidence that they've upped the ED ratio anyway, as the overall number of admits declined from prior years and it looks like the # of matriculants is about what it was two years ago (the first year of ED). Whether the number of ED's are more attractive now than back then would be speculation. It'll be hard to compare based on stuff like test scores, since a good number appear to have been admitted TO.
C’mon, General Grant had to make decisions about deploying troops, in a war. Here, it’s info from an unknown source, some interest based on some connection and others just because.
I see the point in post 6. But think you missed all the hubbub about Chi going test optional.
Definitive data is not boring. Lol, it can be what justifies one’s opinions. Otherwise?
@lookingforward , it’s an analogy! General Grant had bigger fish to fry than defending the honor of a mere University. Did that need spelling out? But you do see the point, I take it, with respect to analyzing incompletely known data?
Test optional is another discussion, surely. Bring it in by all means, however. But it’s a bit hard to suggest I was missing the hubbub when no hubbub had yet been started.
With respect to “definitive data”, I was again being a bit puckish. However, an old Prof of mine once said that it was much easier to understand the Pre-Socratics because so little of their writing had come down to us. There’s always more room for speculation and analysis when the facts are not so completely known as to preclude argument. Those who hate argument are always seeking the holy grail of facts that would put an end to it. Hating argument is, however, not in the DNA of Chicago grads, whatever may be the case elsewhere.
Very curious to see the “winner and loser” in the “cross-admit wars” this year. Yield of 87% seems to be very high, even for H/S.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Might I remind members of the forum rules: “Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place.”
The ad hominems had no place on this thread; several posts edited/deleted. Additionally, feel free to give your hypotheses for the yield, but don’t debate it amongst yourselves.
Just spitballing here, but if UChicago admits 2/3-3/4 of its class ED, the number of actual cross-admits with any particular school is going to be pretty small (because ED admits have to withdraw other apps before getting a decision) and therefore hard to generalize from, no?
That said, knowing that it’s much, much harder to get into UChicago EA/RD than ED, if someone applies to UChicago EA or RD and gets in, they probably have other high-caliber choices and UChicago is probably not their #1 (or they would have applied ED), so UChicago’s cross-admit numbers seem unlikely to be super-high vs. other top-tiers (except for Midwesterners, I suspect).
Having said all that, I think the reason the H and S yields (and those of peer schools) keep rising is because of the increased share of first-gens with idiosyncratic stories who may charm one top-tier school but are unlikely to be admitted across the board (because there are lots of first-gens with intriguing stories). So they get into one top-tier (which probably has great fin aid) and they go.
Even if the information hadn’t been slipped out into the public, 83% yield makes total sense. We already knew that approximately 2,100 had been admitted and that the College was looking to cap the incoming classes at around 1750 each year. Class of '21, the first to be admitted under ED1/ED2, was around 1,740 in size. Last year’s 1,800+ was clearly oversubscribed, based on both comments from the housing assignment experience and Dean Boyer’s own statements. Planned capacity for the required humanities sequence - at least so far - seems to support enrollments somewhere in the low 1700’s. So the days of seeing 1,600 enrollees seems to have ended with Class of '20.
Crimson reported that Harvard’s yield was “nearly 83%” this time around https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/05/83-percent-of-those-admitted-to-harvard-will-attend/ Interestingly, no source divulged for that one either. However, Crimson seems to have a friendly in the admissions office. Maybe the Maroon staff can take a lesson from that.
“Just spitballing here, but if UChicago admits 2/3-3/4 of its class ED, the number of actual cross-admits with any particular school is going to be pretty small (because ED admits have to withdraw other apps before getting a decision) and therefore hard to generalize from, no?”
UChicago very likely admitted about 50% of the class ED. Where are you getting 2/3 - 3/4 come from?
“That said, knowing that it’s much, much harder to get into UChicago EA/RD than ED, if someone applies to UChicago EA or RD and gets in, they probably have other high-caliber choices and UChicago is probably not their #1 (or they would have applied ED), so UChicago’s cross-admit numbers seem unlikely to be super-high vs. other top-tiers (except for Midwesterners, I suspect).”
If Uchicago is seeing a non-binding yield north of 60%, that means that more than 60% of their non-binding admits chose Uchicago over other choices. Since we don’t know what those other choices are, we have no idea whether the cross-admit #'s vs. other top-tiers are high, low or in-between.
“Having said all that, I think the reason the H and S yields (and those of peer schools) keep rising is because of the increased share of first-gens with idiosyncratic stories who may charm one top-tier school but are unlikely to be admitted across the board (because there are lots of first-gens with intriguing stories). So they get into one top-tier (which probably has great fin aid) and they go.”
- A simpler explanation might be that over time more and more applicants - across the board for SES/ethinc/racial - know who their first choice happens to be and are committing to those schools if admitted.
I think the consensus - even on the UChicago board - when UChicago started with the two flavors of ED was that the percent of ED admits had to be in that range, based on such hard numbers as were known and the usual tenuous extrapolation from off-the-cuff Nondorf remarks at parties, etc. Is there evidence that the percent of students admitted ED has dropped now to the extent you claim? I think if it had, UChicago would actually disclose the numbers, because then the percent of the class admitted ED would be in the range of the ED Ivies and there’d be nothing to hide.
Similarly, although it’s possible, I’ll be interested to see evidence that UChicago’s non-binding yield is “north of 60%”. HYPS offer roughly half their admits via SCEA, and evidence suggests that SCEA yields are around 90%, so it follows that their RD yields are in the 60-70% range. Is UChicago’s non-binding yield at the same level, particularly when it’s well-understood that ED gives you much better odds and it can therefore be assumed that UChicago wasn’t your first choice, as I suggested previously? Maybe, particularly if UChicago makes a lot of waitlist offers conditional on the offers being accepted (of which there’s anecdotal evidence), but I wonder.
I don’t think that explanation is wholly convincing as regards the SCEA schools. I’m not aware of any evidence specifically supporting your hypothesis (please share if you have any). Moreover, I don’t believe those schools have increased their proportional numbers of SCEA admits to an appreciable extent in recent years, and the SCEA yield simply can’t go much higher. It seems more likely that there’s been a noticeable increase in yield from the RD pool, which would be the case if there were fewer instances of applicants being admitted to multiple schools in the peer group.
Apart from the reason I suggested in my previous post, another possible explanation for this kind of decline is the ongoing increase in absolute numbers of applicants to these schools, which necessarily decreases the odds of any one applicant getting multiple offers (because there’s an inherently random element to admissions).
“I think the consensus - even on the UChicago board - when UChicago started with the two flavors of ED was that the percent of ED admits had to be in that range, based on such hard numbers as were known and the usual tenuous extrapolation from off-the-cuff Nondorf remarks at parties, etc. Is there evidence that the percent of students admitted ED has dropped now to the extent you claim?”
- they started ED with my daughter's class (class of '21). That year, they admitted 800 ED1's and very likely 400 ED2's out of an admitted class size of around 2400. That's 50% ED. Of those admitted, 72% or approximately 1,750 matriculated. that means around 2/3 of MATRICULANTS were very likely ED. There's no reason to assume any differently now, given that the number admitted early has actually declined a bit since then. Admissions officers have shared with families who ask that they are matriculating a majority of ED's - no secret there. But there is no need for them to admit more than 50% of the class via binding when they provide decent merit for a good number of the remainder.
“I think if it had, UChicago would actually disclose the numbers, because then the percent of the class admitted ED would be in the range of the ED Ivies and there’d be nothing to hide.”
UChicago has always disclosed to its admits the number of earlies (ED and EA). It’s pretty easy after that point to figure out how many were admitted ED2 and RD. Despite the high level of inquisitiveness here and elsewhere regarding ED vs. non-ED admission, the College seems to regard it’s applicant pool a tad differently. There is an “early pool” and a “non-early pool” and each has binding vs. non-binding options.
"Similarly, although it’s possible, I’ll be interested to see evidence that UChicago’s non-binding yield is “north of 60%”. HYPS offer roughly half their admits via SCEA, and evidence suggests that SCEA yields are around 90%, so it follows that their RD yields are in the 60-70% range. Is UChicago’s non-binding yield at the same level, particularly when it’s well-understood that ED gives you much better odds and it can therefore be assumed that UChicago wasn’t your first choice, as I suggested previously? "
The math is pretty straightforward on the non-binding estimated yield and has already been provided in comment #8. Last year’s non-binding estimated yield was fairly high as well and that was remarked on the threads at the time. The ED1 admit rate this year was around 10% so yeah - twice as high as the EA rate; you are correct there. But you might be underestimating UChicago’s merit policy or some other aspect that ultimately helped seal the deal with those non-binding admits. Something certainly is helping with that, since last year they ended up oversubscribed (and not because they undercounted the number of ED’s who would commit LOL).
“I don’t think that explanation is wholly convincing as regards the SCEA schools. I’m not aware of any evidence specifically supporting your hypothesis (please share if you have any).”
The “evidence” I have is anecdotal, which is pretty much the case with any hypothesis regarding increased yields. Every school wishes to admit “right-fit” students who thrive, go on to become successful alums and maintain a positive relationship with the place over the long-term. UChicago isn’t alone in realizing that fact. Even the SCEA schools might have found room for improvement there over the past several years. Generous financial aid obviously helps (and supports your point of view) but first gen. aren’t the only recipients of fin. aid.
“Moreover, I don’t believe those schools have increased their proportional numbers of SCEA admits to an appreciable extent in recent years, and the SCEA yield simply can’t go much higher.”
Both those points seem about right.
“It seems more likely that there’s been a noticeable increase in yield from the RD pool, which would be the case if there were fewer instances of applicants being admitted to multiple schools in the peer group.”
Agree. However. it’s possible that an increasing number of those RD admits were deferred from early and convinced the school to admit them. This is especially relevant given the large number of SCEA applications over the past few years. The college gets a second look and they know that the SCEA hopeful (like any early applicant) tends to have a higher quality application than a good number of the RD pool (which might be quite diverse in terms of quality). What I said was that more students know their first choice and will commit if admitted. That doesn’t mean all will be admitted to first choice (the large majority won’t be). But students might be more savvy and knowledgable about what they want and which school might be the best fit. That might, for instance, explain why ED applications everywhere (or at least at all the top schools offering that option) are increasing.
“Apart from the reason I suggesteuld in my previous post, another possible explanation for this kind of decline is the ongoing increase in absolute numbers of applicants to these schools, which necessarily decreases the odds of any one applicant getting multiple offers (because there’s an inherently random element to admissions).”
-Agree. But these “odds” are probably not truly random, and the errors are going to be correlated (ie finding you are shut out of one top elite is more than likely correlated with getting shut out of one or more comparable as well. And the opposite if you are a particularly sought-after candidate). Also, paper odds aren’t the same as someone’s genuine chances for admission. A whole bunch have odds that simply won’t vary regardless of the number of applications 
It sounds like we agree that around 2/3-3/4 of the UChicago matriculated class is admitted ED (which was my point). At the Ivies that use ED (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn), that proportion ranges from a little under to just over half. This, I suggest, is why UChicago only discloses its admissions statistics partially and unofficially to admitted students, who are now on the team and presumably are fine with this.
The ED Ivies can credibly assert that they fill a lot of the class from the RD round, so it’s worth applying even if they’re not your first choice. It seems to me, though, that UChicago is trying to thread the needle of ginning up as many apps as possible (hence going test-optional, etc.) while signaling that if someone wants to be admitted, they’d be well-advised to indicate that UChicago is their first choice and apply ED. Publishing the statistics would conflict with the first objective, because some number of potential applicants who weren’t sure UChicago was their first choice wouldn’t bother applying.
Where I anecdotally see this happening is with good-but-not-off-the-charts legacies, who can safely be deferred when they apply SCEA in the knowledge that they’re very likely to accept an RD offer.
That’s certainly true, but my point is that when there are many more very strong candidates and first-gens with unusual stories in a pool that has been growing in size, and the number of run-the-table applicants is increasing more slowly (because there are only so many to be found), it follows that the total number of admits across these schools is going to be spread over an increasing number of applicants.