At the Ivies that use ED (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn), that proportion ranges from a little under to just over half.
[/QUOTE]
I think that this year, even if we assume that ED1 and ED 2 admit rates are at 15% and 10% respectively, UChicago can easily hit “just above or just below 5-%” too. If the rumour that ED1 admit rate is 10% is true, then they will blow this metric out of the water because the implied yield in RD would be close to 70% instead of above 60%.
Thanks for compiling all that data, @FStratford. It would be helpful (to me at least, and, I would guess, to others) to know which of the numbers in your tables have been publicly confirmed by UChicago. Maybe you could copy and repost with a star next to those numbers that the university has explicitly confirmed (by announcing them, publishing a transcript of a speech where Nondorf states them, etc.)?
In any case, if I assume they’re all true, then, by your numbers, UChicago gave out 1,425 early admits and 640 RD admits, and the early admits account for 76.7% of the enrolled class. As noted in my previous posts, this compares to around 50% of the enrolled class admitted via ED/SCEA across the Ivies.
If the ED1 admit rate were 10%, then, based on your numbers, there’d be about 400 ED1 admits instead of 610, ED1 admits as a percent of the enrolled class would be about 24% instead of 35.6% and total early admits as a percent of the enrolled class would be close to 66% instead of 76.7% (assuming that this was balanced entirely by increased RD yield and that EA yield remained the same). Whether the proportion of the class admitted early is 66% or 76.7%, I think it’s evident that UChicago has, in effect, moved the admissions process forward relative to its peer schools.
What I think is really interesting are the RD yield numbers of 60% or better. If UChicago is getting that from RD, it suggests to me that they jumped the gun on introducing ED/EDII. They could have just stuck with EA/RD and risen just on their improving reputation.
@hebegebe RD yield could be over 60% because UChicago is able to offer better merit to a smaller number of non-binding admits now. Last non-binding admitted class was Class of '20 and yield then was 64%. It seems to be about the same now for non-binding admits with potentially larger amounts of merit. So not sure the needle would have moved as much - maybe (speculation here) to low 70’s? Still a healthy number, of course.
The question would be: what are they achieving with the extra 10%-15% yield over what they might have achieved anyway? The usual suspects - higher number of full-pay, for instance - might not be the whole story. You’d think that if UChicago wants to max out the number of ED admits, they’d publish the more favorable admit rate. But they don’t, so they must not want it to be public. That suggests a desire to keep that pool of applicants limited to those who wish to ED for reasons other than just getting a better admit rate.
When they began ED, no one had any idea what the size of the pool would be for ED1 or ED2 - kind of like how it is now 
. We’ve since learned that a ton of families that first year really jumped at the chance to apply binding because, for them, it was UChicago or bust. Those were the ED1’s. As for ED2, many were EA’s who got religion and decided it was now UChicago-or-bust so switched to binding. They were ED’s; they just didn’t know it yet. Even if Nondorf had accepted a small sliver of qualified applicants from those pools, the amount of effort put to figuring out the commitment level was practically nil. And - as it turned out - the number of qualified applicants was NOT a sliver; it was quite large. THIS is why they continue to admit so many ED’s and why there is no need to publish the ED admit rate. As long as highly qualified applicants continue to apply ED, they will keep to the current strategy.
Maybe, @hebegebe - but I think the increase in RD yield has been accelerated by Nondorf’s other tactics.
I give him a great deal of credit for realizing that he had an undervalued asset - a top-tier university with a highly distinguished academic history, located in one of the largest American cities, which for a variety of reasons wasn’t attracting suitable applicants in large enough numbers relative to its academic peers. He understood that if he could make UChicago apparently much more selective, he would start a virtuous cycle that would solve this problem for him.
So he kickstarted it with all the things we know about: the mass mailings to increase apps, focused efforts to climb the USNWR rankings, adding a Chinese menu of early application options that’s unique among UChicago’s peers, accepting a far higher proportion of the class early than UChicago’s peers (and most of them ED, thereby increasing yield), tactical use of merit money that the Ivies can’t offer, giving conditional offers to waitlisted candidates, and signaling to high-stats full payers who aren’t set on an Ivy that they should apply ED to maximize their chances of getting into a top-tier school.
He’s been spectacularly successful (or so it would appear, since there’s less disclosure than at the peers). I don’t think sticking with EA/RD would have worked to anything like this extent, because the schools using that are either HYPS or have a specific niche (e.g., MIT, Georgetown), and I think it would have been a longer, harder road to compete with them effectively. The strategy required everything else Nondorf did to succeed as much, and as quickly, as it has.
@FStafford at #38 and #39:
IMHO, your ED applicant pool is too small. I’m figuring 7,000 ED1’s (they outright rejected a good number of those this time) and 8,000 EA’s. While that might seem atrociously high for ED1, we need to keep in mind a couple of things: 1) the early numbers jumped in total; which pool was more likely to increase in size? and 2) Top schools are trending toward higher ED/SCEA applicant pools; best guess as to why is the obvious one: applicants have targeted those schools as a clear first choice and want the chance to prove it.
So with the revised applicant numbers, they likely selected 700 ED1 admits (10% admit rate) and 350 EA admits (4.4% admit rate). Total: 1,050 admits, 7% admit rate.
Out of the new RD/ED2 pool (15,000 in total), they admitted another 1,050. That’s another 7% admit rate. How those pool-specific rates shook out is anyone’s guess. Personal hunch is that most ED2 admits were SCEA-deferreds or equivalent; some ED1’s were re-offered a switch to binding (that seemed to be a departure from the prior years) but a good number seemed to get rejected. Don’t recall hearing about any EA’s who switched and were accepted, but there must be a few. In any case, the anecdotal reports suggest they accepted mostly new ED2 applications, rather than deferreds who switched. Best guess: they admitted something like 350 ED2’s and 700 RD’s (again, mostly new apps for those regulars but that’s in keeping with recent history).
So, based on the above: ED is 700+350 = 1,050 = 50% of admitted class. EA/RD is another 1,050 (350+700). Total is 2,100 out of 35,000 admits for a total admit rate of 6%.
The effective yield is 100% for the ED’s so all of them enroll. That means, assuming that 83% yield, that of the 1,743 or so enrollees, 1,050 (61%) are ED and 693 (39%) are EA/RD. That means about 2/3’rds of those non-binding admits actually committed. This is slightly off from my earlier numbers upthread but just by a couple of percentage points.
Important additional conclusion: with an 83% yield, you really have to go into the realm of the ridiculous (ie near 100% of enrolled class being ED) in order to arrive at yields for the non-bindings that are lower than 50%. Regardless of how the real numbers shake out, those EA/RD’s committed somewhere north of 60%.
"Out of the new RD/ED2 pool (15,000 in total), they admitted another 1,050. That’s another 7% admit rate. "
oops - boo boo. Haven’t had 2nd cup of coffee yet. 20,000 NEW ED2/RD applications, not 15,000. So implied admit rate for the new non-early apps is a little over 5%.
@DeepBlue86 - welcome back!
“The confusion is between ED admits as (i) a proportion of total admits and (ii) as a proportion of the enrolled class. UChicago doesn’t fill half the class ED, rather (based on Nondorf statements as reported by @JBStillFlying and others), about half the offers UChicago makes are ED offers, which results in 2/3 or more of the enrolled class being admitted on a binding basis (through ED1 or 2).”
“This is significantly different from the Ivies, all of which make more - typically much more - RD than ED or SCEA offers. As a result, when you take account of class size and make reasonable assumptions for ED/SCEA yield, generally around half of their enrolled classes are admitted early (and, in the case of HYP, which use SCEA, no one in their enrolled classes is admitted on a binding basis).”
It’s best to think of UChicago not as ED vs. non-binding, but Early vs. Regular with two different options - price sensitive and non-sensitive - within each. They clearly have a sufficient number of qualified applicants in each pool. Furthermore, HYPS most likely has figured out their segmented pools as well - they are just better about how to select from each w/o going ED. If nearly 100% of your SCEA’s commit, then you are effectively selecting the equivalent of ED applicants. Whether that’s due to just having better talent on the Admissions Committee or instituting ED . . . the outcome is pretty much equivalent either way.
@DeepBlue86
Are you including the EA acceptances in your early admit total for Uchicago? (EDI+EDII+EA). If @Stratford 's figures are accurate, 57.5% of enrollees come form binding ED rounds. The remainder are EA and RD (nonbinding) admits, closer to @JBStillFlying 's 60:40 ratio.
@DeepBlue86 considers “Early” to be ED1, EA, and ED2 and ends up with “Early” being 2/3 - 3/4 of the enrolled class as a result. However, it’s a mischaracterization of the ED2 pool to lump it in with EA and ED1. ED2 has the same deadline as RD, and most of the applicants had applied “early” (ie ED/ED1/EA/SCEA/REA) elsewhere first. Application #'s for ED2 and RD are, proportionally, similar to the old RD pool prior to introducing ED. So ED2 is NOT an “Early pool”; rather it’s a binding “Regular” pool.
As I mentioned a couple posts back, UChicago has segmented its Early and Regular pools into price vs. non-price sensitive segments. Both application deadlines - the Early deadline of Nov. 1 and the Regular deadline of Jan. 1 - have applicants who opt for UChicago on factors other than price (conditional on need), and both deadlines also have applicants who like UChicago (even like it a lot) but want or need to compare merit and need-based aid with other institutions. For the Jan. 1 deadline those two groups self-select into ED2 and RD.
In fact, given how quickly UChicago got out its likely letters to the RD’s, it’s likely that Regular Pool decisions (ED2 and RD) were wrapped up shortly after the New Year. That means they were basically decided concurrently. ED2 had an earlier release date but that has more to do with the terms of the binding ED2 agreement (you have to pull all your regular apps and withdraw all earlier acceptances and you need time to review your FA package first, etc.) than anything else. UChicago can easily figure out how many ED’s are committing since the number won’t be higher than the number of ED offers made 
I appreciate your attempts at appeasement, @DeepBlue86 , thereby avoiding a choice of weapons at a too early hour, but I’m not really buying your restatement as to why Chicago’s peer schools “are willing to risk not getting” the kids Chicago is happy to get via binding admissions. Your gloss on that previous statement is that you meant merely that “the Ivies were willing to take the risk of a lowered yield”. Huh? Is that what it’s all about?
Elsewhere on this board you have described Chicago students as being diligent and studious but not quite in the top drawer in the charisma department. And even here, where you are making nice, you will only say that “UChicago kids on average are very academically strong and on that dimension stack up well against many kids who go to the Ivies.” Or, to strip away all euphemism, “Chicago kids are one-dimensional, and even in that dimension are only as good as ‘many’ in the peer schools.” Or even more bluntly: “Your average Harvard kid is a sportsman, a polymath, a conversationalist and a leader; your average Chicago kid, well, reads a lot of books and studies hard, as hard as ‘many’ - but far from all - his Harvard confreres, who are doing all those other things as well.”
No, I am not appeased, though I have to admit that you are illustrating well the proposition that “Harvard just doesn’t get us Chicago types.”
If we are discussing rumored yield here, the most relevant characteristic is whether it is binding or nonbinding. Consequently, it makes more sense to lump EA with RD, and the two ED rounds together. This would also be more appropriate when comparing these figures with other schools as @DeepBlue86 seems to be doing
You’re putting words in my mouth, @marlowe1 - all I meant, as I explained, is that the Ivies were willing to risk lower yields by giving out more non binding RD admits, because they target a broader range of students (some of whom, frankly, wouldn’t be admitted to UChicago). That really was what it was all about. There was no implication that the Ivies were turning up their noses at the kids UChicago admits, and I regret that you read it that way.
I think you’re also misrepresenting some of my past statements, but that’s a longer conversation, probably for another thread. We should at some point also have a discussion about “Harvard” - as Iñigo Montoya says, you keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
@ccdad99 says:
“If we are discussing rumored yield here, the most relevant characteristic is whether it is binding or nonbinding. Consequently, it makes more sense to lump EA with RD, and the two ED rounds together. This would also be more appropriate when comparing these figures with other schools as @DeepBlue86 seems to be doing”
This opinion makes sense, as SCEA is also a restricted admissions process that compels applicants to apply (but not commit) to their first choice. As @DeepBlue86 and others have pointed out, these yields are likely to be very high, perhaps over 90% now.
However, it’s also possible to do an Early vs. Non-Early comparison, on the theory that UChicago is attempting to replicate an SCEA yield outcome for its ED1/EA pool (very high, but not 100%) and an HYPS Regular yield outcome for its ED2/RD pool (> 50% but < Early yield). Following this theory, you’d expect the number of ED1 admits to be greater than ED2, and the flip side for EA vs. RD. That, by the way, is pretty much what several of us believe is happening and is consistent with anecdotal evidence.
Let’s do both!
I have chosen to compare UChicago to the gold standard of the HYPS: Harvard University. The Maroon has complained that Boyer keeps comparing UChicago to Harvard so a comparison seems appropriate. Also, UChicago’s yield this year matches Harvard’s at 83%. Finally, as a maverick institution UChicago probably isn’t content with comparisons just to Yale or Princeton (Stanford - another story).
As mentioned, Harvard (like UChicago) has an 83% yield this year. We also know that 48% of 1,950 admits applied SCEA. Assuming at least a 90% yield on those admissions (consistent with what other posters who know those places estimate), Harvard very likely enrolled at least 850 SCEA’s - over 50% of the total enrollment of around 1,619 (1,950 admits * 83% yield). It’s not UChicago’s 60:40, but it’s not 40:60 either. Fair to say that Harvard and UChicago don’t appear all that different from this angle.
Doing the other comparison and using my numbers from upthread, UChicago’s early yield (ED1/EA) is probably in the 90% range since a good portion of those early admits consisted of ED1’s. I calculate something like 88% - 89%. That’s no higher - in fact, might be at least slightly lower - than Harvard’s estimated SCEA yield. UChicago’s regular yield (ED2/RD) and Harvard’s regular yield look to be about the same (I calculate about 77%) - again, using my numbers from upthread. So again, the two schools appear quite similar. It’s also interesting that UChicago and Harvard both have tried to keep their early admission percentage to be around 48-50% of total admits; you see that when you go back a couple of years for both and factor in UChicago’s oversubscription last year, and H’s the year before.
What does all this mean? Not sure. It might just be just a coincidence that UChicago seems to be mimicking Harvard’s yield and composition thereof. One thing that is definitely obvious is that the other peer schools are a bit behind H - and UChicago 
- since they are NOT currently enrolling more than 50% of their class as SCEA. However, as yields increase, they may well be on the same path. Others can look at the history of those schools and either confirm or refute.
ED2 is, in fact, an early pool, because you get your decision before you hear from your RD schools (certainly most of the schools UChicago considers its peers) as the quid pro quo for committing to enroll. That’s why it’s called “EARLY decision”. That the application deadline is the same as for RD, or that you may have applied to other schools even earlier is neither here nor there (frankly, they probably denied you or you wouldn’t be applying ED2 in the first place, so why is it relevant?). It’s entirely appropriate to include ED2 in measuring the proportion of the class admitted through early programs. If any of the Ivies or Stanford offered ED2, I’d include it for them too. ED2 is just another form of giving you an early answer in exchange for revealing your current preference.
In the same post, @JBStillFlying refers to likely letters being sent to RD applicants. I wonder how many of those who will ultimately be admitted get such letters. If it’s a significant number, maybe close to the entire future enrolled class is getting some kind of early notification, further evidence that Nondorf is effectively shifting the admissions calendar forward.
^^Why such the obsession to compare UChicago with Harvard? Inferiority complex? You can’t compare the yields of the two schools, as they’re apples and oranges. We don’t see such comparison between MIT and Harvard, for example, because people understand their admission processes are very different.
@1NJParent - the reasons for the comparison to Harvard are stated in #53. Which ones did you have trouble with? The yield of the two schools are identical this year and when you decompose those yields, the undelying components are quite similar. Which part of that analysis would you revise?
@1NJParent that is a typical response (inferiority complex) for anyone who likes one entity over another. As @JBStillFlying says Harvard is the gold standard which everyone compares themselves to (even YPS). MIT and Harvard are very different schools that attract different types of students, and MIT already believes that they are the gold standard (and they certainly are from an engineering perspective) so why compare themselves against a LA college? Its common for schools attempting to achieve greatness in anything to compare against the best. College football teams are always comparing themselves against Alabama (even Clemson albeit they may have overtaken Alabama). If you aren’t trying to beat the best then what are you trying to do (Universities are in fact competitive)? UChicago isn’t trying to become Harvard, they are trying to become better than Harvard (by whatever definition they choose). As an additional note the Harvard/MIT duality provides the single most powerful education system by far with maybe Stanford coming in a VERY distant second. You could make an argument for Stanford/Caltech but they are simply too far apart geographically and even then they can’t compete with Harvard/MIT.
BTW @JBStillFlying that was a very nice analysis, and rings true as to what UChicago is trying to do with its admissions program.
My point is that UChicago and Harvard have very different admission processes, so the yield comparison is misleading and irrelevant. A more apt comparison may be with Columbia, even though that’s probably unfair to Columbia since it doesn’t have multitude of other admission options such as EA, ED2 that UChicago has. If UChicago were to adopt SCEA, then yes, you could make comparison with Harvard.
@1NJParent UChicago has to be innovative to compete in admissions with Harvard, you don’t go head to head with someone in the lead, now that would be a very poor strategy. Analogous to football, the teams that play Alabama straight up get beat, you have to negate there advantages to win the long game. If you want to UChicago to go straight up against Harvard in admissions Harvard would win (if that is the answer your looking for, I don’t think anyone here would have a problem admitting that). However, UChicago is getting the kids it wants as the 83% yield demonstrates and that is the end goal for admissions, to get the kids that it has admitted to matriculate.