Rumored Yield

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
61

@DeepBlue86 says:

“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”.”

As mentioned above, the ED2/RD pool is pretty much what the old RD pool would have been these past few years. If not, where did these ED2 applicants come from? LOL.

“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?).”

Hmm. Sounds like someone who is a Regular Pool applicant to me. In reality, those who have been admitted ED2 at UChicago were deferred from UChicago EA/ED1 or SCEA elsewhere. While it’s possible they were were “denied” somewhere, haven’t met that applicant. There may also be a few who simply didn’t want to apply early for whatever reason but haven’t met that applicant either.

“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.”

-OK - fair enough. But then you would need to look at early applicants as well as early admits in your comparison of UChicago vs. peers, and there you would find very little similarly. Peers simply don’t have up to 2/3 of the applicant pool applying “early.” And that really does recast the large emphasis on early admits in a whole new way, since 2/3 of them applied early to begin with. TBH, I prefer looking at ED2 the same way as UChicago does, and the same way it views its actual “Early” pool - as consisting of those who would opt for Uchicago on price, vs. factors other than price. BTW, peers know that their own applicant pools consist of similar segments.

“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.”

  • Anecdotally, only a few got such letters but I don't believe that practice is very different from what Yale and other schools did for certain of their RD's? Are you suggesting that everyone is trying to push the admissions calendar forward? Also, don't forget the LL's for all those athletes in Novemeber! - we can call that "Super-Early Admission" (SEA for short).
62

If you don’t like the MIT/Harvard comparison because you think they’re too different, how about the comparison between Caltech and MIT? Why doesn’t Caltech play this types of games with admissions, even though it loses many cross-admits to MIT. Because it’s comfortable with its unique position in higher education. UChicago also has its unique position, why doesn’t it act like one?

63

“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 - any school can choose to have “a multitude of other admission options”, do ED, EA, SCEA or whatnot. Schools generally choose their admissions plans according to what they see as the optimal strategy for their institution. And is it really the case that, say, Columbia or Penn’s yields can’t be compared with Harvard because they don’t have SCEA? Don’t tell that to the internet! LOL.

Perhaps if you could provide a counter theory and supporting analysis to show that UChicago is NOT tying to replicate Harvard’s yield using ED1 and ED2, we can move the discussion forward?

64

It looks like @DeepBlue86 is making the assumption that at least the ED2 pool is a “reluctant” pool and that if given the choice they may have chosen another school. This is where I disagree, those in the ED2 pool might have had UChicago as a close second but were willing to commit. Their first choice may have very well been an SCEA school but that school most likely deferred the to the RD round further reducing there chances, and making it very unlikely they would be admitted (yes there will be some that are and I personally know at least one). Still at the decision point they elected ED2 signaling that it had now become their first choice (being spurned by a college can be a powerful motivator).

65

BTW here are the percentages of the each Ivy class of 2023 that were accepted early. Pretty close to half of each class is an early acceptance except for Yale and Cornell.
Brown 46.2%
Columbia 46.8%
Cornell 43.9%
Dartmouth 49.9%
*Harvard 50%
Penn 53.0%
*Princeton 51%
*Yale 40%

*Calculated the percent of the class by SCEA acceptances at a .9 yield divided by the total class number.

66

Following up on @CU123’s post #63, neither of my kids was reluctant in the least to go ED2. ED2 seemed tailor-made for my S19 who loved both UChicago and an HYPS, had a slight preference for the latter, but knew that UChicago would become his #1 if he wasn’t admitted SCEA. Because ED2 allowed him to specify a special preference for his two top colleges, it was pretty much a part of the plan from the beginning. My D17, on the other hand, experienced the motivation that came from being spurned. In this case, the culprit was UChicago (EA). In her case, two schools were neck and neck; didn’t want to ED at either because she just didn’t have a clear #1 . . . till she got deferred. Then it was all about UChicago.

67

^^ Harvard’s number should be 48%. 935 SCEA out of 1,950 total admits.

Edit - whoops - are the denominators in #64 enrolled students? If so, H is probably more like 52%: (935.9) / (1950.83)

68

Denominator was enrolled and my data showed 1665 enrolled, numbers could be off slightly as I just used the Ivy coach numbers. I would also point out that SCEA at a .9 seems VERY conservative to me. If it were .95 that would push the percentages even higher.

69

I suggest it means very little; you’re just data mining, trying to use guesstimates of undisclosed UChicago admissions numbers to support your theory. My far simpler theory is that UChicago is trying to cherry-pick certain groups out of all the pools and keep overall yield as high as possible while avoiding sending a signal that it’s a total waste of time to apply if you’re not willing to commit. To that end, they use the tools available at each point, namely:

ED1: no worries here, fill a substantial chunk of the class because they’re locked and this protects yield, but make sure to leave enough space for stars in the later rounds
EA: take only the stars (because these admits aren’t locked) and throw merit money at them; try to get the best of the not-quite stars to switch to ED2 (otherwise defer them), don’t take so many in this round that you imperil overall yield or eat up all the remaining spots
ED2: protect yield by locking in another large portion of the class, such that binding admits are now well over half of those who will enroll
RD: send out some likely letters and take a flyer on a few stars that you think are persuadable (where relevant, using the merit money firepower that you saved by admitting all those full payers ED), give out some more admits to deferred ED candidates (who have signaled a preference) and in the form of contingent offers to waitlisted candidates in order to protect yield (what some call “ED3”); make sure that enough RD offers are made to demonstrate to the world that a not-insignificant number of people are admitted without committing

This is not how it works at Harvard and the peer schools, to put it mildly.

For starters, right off the bat over 20% of Harvard’s SCEA admits and about 12% of its enrolled class are allocated to the close-to-200 recruited athletes for its 30+ D1 teams (it’s similar at all the Ivies). Beyond that, there are various institutional needs to be satisfied, and Harvard’s in the fortunate position of knowing that if someone fits the needed profile and applies SCEA, they’re virtually certain to attend because it’s Harvard and the student signaled their preference for it by applying early.

In the SCEA round, Harvard is in many cases actively picking individuals for specific slots, not protecting yield by locking up a lot of high-stats full payers. Harvard could fill its class multiple times with stars from the SCEA round but resists the temptation to do so, because there are many other kinds of stars in the RD round who are less savvy about the process and often don’t know how to play the SCEA game (and are probably lower-SES). Harvard wants them just as much, and is willing to compete for them (and without the use of merit money, which it can’t offer). Harvard cares in a limited way about yield, but it’s more about making sure there are enough beds, rather than about puffing up its reputation and giving its fans something to gush about on College Confidential. This is largely the same at YPS. No one doubts their selectivity, so they don’t have to go to great lengths to prove it.

On a related note:

I think you’re confusing cause and effect here. UChicago has up to 2/3 of the applicant pool applying early because they actively encourage it and have made it clear that you’re much, much more likely to be admitted if you do. Harvard and its peers don’t have this imbalance because they state explicitly that applying early doesn’t confer an advantage (even though the numbers show that it does, albeit to a much lesser extent than at UChicago).

70

“I suggest it means very little; you’re just data mining, trying to use guesstimates of undisclosed UChicago admissions numbers to support your theory.”

  • Nope. theory came long after the numbers were estimated. Even before yield was nailed down. Just following the numbers . . .

“My far simpler theory is that UChicago is trying to cherry-pick certain groups out of all the pools and keep overall yield as high as possible while avoiding sending a signal that it’s a total waste of time to apply if you’re not willing to commit.”

  • yes, the Ivies don't do that at all, says no high school guidance counselor ever. :smiley:

"To that end, they use the tools available at each point, namely:

ED1: no worries here, fill a substantial chunk of the class because they’re locked and this protects yield, but make sure to leave enough space for stars in the later rounds
EA: take only the stars (because these admits aren’t locked) and throw merit money at them; try to get the best of the not-quite stars to switch to ED2 (otherwise defer them), don’t take so many in this round that you imperil overall yield or eat up all the remaining spots
ED2: protect yield by locking in another large portion of the class, such that binding admits are now well over half of those who will enroll
RD: send out some likely letters and take a flyer on a few stars that you think are persuadable (where relevant, using the merit money firepower that you saved by admitting all those full payers ED), give out some more admits to deferred ED candidates (who have signaled a preference) and in the form of contingent offers to waitlisted candidates in order to protect yield (what some call “ED3”); make sure that enough RD offers are made to demonstrate to the world that a not-insignificant number of people are admitted without committing."

  • Ivies do LL's, they fill their class with early admits who will 90+% commit, and they go after stars as well. Really, no difference here.

“For starters, right off the bat over 20% of Harvard’s SCEA admits and about 12% of its enrolled class are allocated to the close-to-200 recruited athletes for its 30+ D1 teams (it’s similar at all the Ivies).”

  • Good point. As a post-secondary institution, UChicago is focused mainly on academics and certainly doesn't recruit and commit 20% of the early class to athletics. One can certainly say those athletes help with that high SCEA yield. And they are kind of a binding commitment, aren't they.

“Beyond that, there are various institutional needs to be satisfied, and Harvard’s in the fortunate position of knowing that if someone fits the needed profile and applies SCEA, they’re virtually certain to attend because it’s Harvard and the student signaled their preference for it by applying early.”

  • Kind of what ED does at UChicago as well.

"In the SCEA round, Harvard is in many cases actively picking individuals for specific slots, not protecting yield by locking up a lot of high-stats full payers.

  • They are both picking individuals and the outcome is pretty much the same. Yield is high, and I have yet to meet a full pay ED'er this year (I know they must be out there somewhere because a few posters keep insisting.) I've met some ED's who are on near full scholarship, however.

“Harvard could fill its class multiple times with stars from the SCEA round but resists the temptation to do so, because there are many other kinds of stars in the RD round who are less savvy about the process and often don’t know how to play the SCEA game (and are probably lower-SES).”

  • This is true for UChicago as well. With 15,000 early apps this year (actually 20-23k if we use your definition of "early"), they had to let some good ones go.

“Harvard wants them just as much, and is willing to compete for them (and without the use of merit money, which it can’t offer). Harvard cares in a limited way about yield, but it’s more about making sure there are enough beds, rather than about puffing up its reputation and giving its fans something to gush about on College Confidential.”

  • Gushes the Harvard fan on College Confidential. :wink:

“This is largely the same at YPS. No one doubts their selectivity, so they don’t have to go to great lengths to prove it.”

  • Is haunting another college forum and occasionally providing an extensive HYPS apologia considered "going to great lengths?"

Here’s a question to bring you back to topic, @DeepBlue86 - what aspect of the comparison of yields (UChicago vs. Harvard), when you break down the components as I attempted to do up-thread, do you disagree with, and why? Specifics, please. No more apologia.

71

“I think you’re confusing cause and effect here. UChicago has up to 2/3 of the applicant pool applying early because they actively encourage it and have made it clear that you’re much, much more likely to be admitted if you do.”

-They have made no such statement that early confers an advantage - can you point to a statement or source of information that demonstrates otherwise? UChicago didn’t even announce the change in admissions plans in 2016.

Edit to add: Also, no confusion of cause and effect. UChicago offered those plans because they knew the demand was there. Nondorf is very clever but it would take a special kind of hypnotic power to compel 2/3 of the applicant pool to follow your ingenious plan to protect yield and lock in a boatload of full payors.

“Harvard and its peers don’t have this imbalance because they state explicitly that applying early doesn’t confer an advantage (even though the numbers show that it does, albeit to a much lesser extent than at UChicago).”

  • Gee - are you saying that Harvard and its peers are actually misrepresenting themselves? That's quite interesting. Not sure what you mean by "lesser extent" because my estimates show that there is about a 6-pt difference between, say, ED1 and EA. (10% vs. 4%). And then between "Early" and "Regular" is only a couple of points (7% for ED1/EA vs. 5% for RD excluding deferreds - which tend not to get more than a few admission offers anyway). What is the admit rate differential (SCEA vs. RD) for some of the HYPS schools?
72

@DeepBlue86 has again assumed the mantle of Inspector Javert, but his latest post contains nothing he has not said many times before. This time it is packaged as a summa of all those prior remarks and put in a single big bundle labelled “Chicago: Unfair, dishonest, manipulative”. This is contrasted with the HYPS bundle, labelled “Noble, transparent, honest”. Thus in this recitation of the operation of Chicago’s four admission categories we hear nothing of any thought that they have been designed to recruit a Chicago-specific student body - or even an objectively high-quality student body. No, with Chicago the motivation ascribed must always be only the basest. If one strips out casually derogatory terms (“cherry-picking”, “throwing merit money”) one is left with a single motivation governing the entire process - “protecting yield” or, as said elsewhere, “juicing the numbers”. All this as contrasted with the Harvard approach, which concerns itself only with the high-minded enterprise of recruiting the class it wants, because “no one doubts their selectivity so they don’t have to go to lengths to prove it.”

We are getting here a whiff of stale old Harvard triumphalism posing as a noble disregard for all our unfair Chicago tricks. One wonders why the Olympians of the Harvard-Yale board find us worthy of their attention. Perhaps it is that underlying the disdain and distaste for how Chicago does things is a real concern that Chicago is getting out of its lane.

The details in that fusillade of denigration in post 68 have been well responded to by another poster. The details are interesting, but for me it is the passion that intrigues and mystifies.

73

JB,
Here’s the “reported” numbers, everything else in my worksheet is an assumption from last year or reasonable guesses (e.g. 100% yield for ED1/1). I get your point though that the increase in ED1/EA could be mostly in ED1.:

15k ED1/EA applicants at 7% acceptance rate, admitting 1,050.
35k total applicants at 5.9% acceptance rate, admitting 2,065.
Derived from above 2: ED2/RD applicants is 20k, acceptance rate ~5.1%, admitting 1,015 .
Total Yield = 83%, implying a class size of 1,715

74

Yes. The trend is improving. 2 years ago ED1/2 accounted for about 2/3, now its 3/5. ED1/2/EA is now the new 3/4. I won’t be surprised if eventually they settle for a while at 1/4 for each bucket. And then who knows, maybe give more slots to the RD as yield on that front goes up.

75

Of course Harvard also protects its yield. Why would it rack its cross admits with YPS so closely year after year after year of it did not?

76

Taking a step back from the lunchroom brawl:

A school’s admissions policy shouldn’t be confused with its overall philosophy or moral compass. Those unfold from much larger issues. It’s possible to misuse any admissions plan and it’s also possible to use it to achieve more noble goals (such as putting together the most genuinely diverse class of adequately-prepared scholars you are able to given your school’s finances and application pool, making sure you are reaching everyone of potential, making the process more navigable, etc.). ALL the top schools - and most of the rest - have these goals in mind when they open the new application cycle. If a school can achieve these ends via its current plan, that’s typically deemed a success. If it can’t, it may need to re-examine the plan.

ED helps to explain UChicago’s yield - no doubt about that. Had they not overshot numbers admitted last year, they would have been north of 80% then, too. But ED obviously can’t guarantee a lofty yield since UChicago only moved the needle to a respectable 72% the first year. Only increasing popularity and competent talent in the AO can ensure the increase. Admissions needs - and wants - to be choosy and focus on those who would love to come to the school and would thrive there, as well as be available to focus on others who would be a fantastic addition but who also might need a little love and care to be convinced. That’s true for UChicago, and it’s every bit as true for HYPS.

Admissions plans don’t increase the popularity of your school; if they did, UChicago wouldn’t have seen applications actually DECLINE the first year it introduced ED. Only bigger things can help there. So it seems that all the criticism over ED might be misplaced. The school’s outreach to non-traditional groups certainly hasn’t DECLINED since introducing ED - it’s increased. Prior to TO, stats and academic quality weren’t at all compromised - they were continuing their upward trend (this year’s revealed SAT average - 1520’something - is ginned up due to TO; Admissions should have known better than to share it). Application numbers have increased about 4% per year on average over the past three years. That doesn’t sound like an Admissions policy thing. That sounds more like a UChicago thing.

So if UChi Admissions thought that the yield should be about Harvard’s yield since the school was capable of attracting students who are about as enthusiastic . . . what’s the beef? And if they act as if they are replicating some or all of the mix that goes into that yield because it’s a good mix . . . so what? No one disagrees that UChicago is the underdog in this race and needs to have a benchmark. Perhaps the indignation is, as others have pointed out, that thinking about a race against HYPS at all is just so unthinkably arrogant and vulgar. Almost as vulgar as thinking of Harvard as a “benchmark” perhaps.

77

@FStratford at #72:

“35k total applicants at 5.9% acceptance rate, admitting 2,065.”

  • Last I heard they had rounded to 6%. I’m assuming that they picked some off WL and admitted an even 2100.

“ED2/RD applicants is 20k, acceptance rate ~5.1%, admitting 1,015 . Total Yield = 83%, implying a class size of 1,715”

  • Anything between 1700 and 1750 is a reasonable range. Re-reading the Boyer comments, he seemed to be more toward 1700 than 1750 so your estimate might be very good.

My numbers, in a nutshell, were more like 1050 ED1/EA, 1050 ED2/RD, essentially no EA-deferred accepted (I think there was one poster who did get in?). Early round admit: 7%. “Regular” (including ED2): 5%. 6% overall. I don’t think we are much off from one another. If ED1 apps. lower to 6K, admit rate goes up a tad. Still pretty low. Something like 6K for ED1 and 9K for EA makes sense to me. Replicates what I’m seeing for Yale SCEA and MIT EA - grasping at straws a bit there, perhaps, but those two are the closest to those early admit plans at UChicago.

78

Jb. Sounds about right. We will know more once the total number of enrolled gets published. And if they ever give us again the relative proportion of ED1 vs ED 2.

79

^ That latter one? Doubt it. Revealed a bit too much. While the thought of them haunting CC is a bit far fetched, they are probably aware of the number crunching going on there and elsewhere.

80

https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/7/11/yield-rate-rises/