https://www.wsj.com/articles/oberlin-university-of-chicago-and-other-elite-colleges-extend-application-deadlines-11548766801. Hope this isn’t behind a paywall… GW, WUSTL, UChicago, Oberlin extended their application deadlines. Are they just pushing for more and more applicants to get their acceptance rate even lower, or did they see a drop on applicants this year?
WSJ puts everything behind a paywall.
The cynic in me thinks Chicago wants to jack up the number of applicants. Otherwise why would they want to go test optional?
Perhaps WashU is doing the same thing. Although they did get close to 30,000 applications last year.
I don’t understand it. They have plenty of students to select. There has to be a limit on this.
It is shameful, but of course for the benefit of the children as they say. If they make the students adhere to common app rules, then they should stick to the common deadlines.
Agree.
while UChicago is mentioned, it only references one e-mail sent to a student who had initially expressed interest in the school. It could be that student had an outstanding test score, the only interest from Idaho this year, (a geographical spot?), URM, prospective Classics major, legacy, or any other reason.
The article happened to mention the one extension it offered, but likely offered more. It also says it “considers email requests for application extensions”. The article also said RPI sent out offers to extend applications, and U of the Pacific made an email extension offer sound personal but it really was offered to all seniors who had inquired about the school but had not applied.
So UofC didn’t get enough quality students in 30000+ applications? Doubtful.
The article implies that the issue is related in part to increasing yield. It also probably related to wanting to keep those acceptance rates super low. Surely U of C has plenty of qualified applicants. Assume WUSTL and GW probably do too. The article indicates that U of C was pretty vague with respect to what they offered to potential applicants.
RPI has been relentless with email to my kid and we received the “extension” one as well.
There is nothing on the UChicago admissions website saying that the deadline has been extended and it still has the old date of Jan. 2. I can’t see the article, but wouldn’t a journalist call the University and see if it is factual? Or maybe I’m thinking of a time long past.
Try pulling the article up through google. It came up in full read mode a time or two before going behind the paywall… Its doubtful any of these schools put anything on their website. These were targeted email invitations to students. And as I said, the author did mention having gotten a vague, non-committal response form UofC admissions.
It is
Sending an email blast is a whole lot different than responding to a one-off. This type of yellow journalism should be beneath WSJ. Shame on you!
When it went behind a paywall on my phone, I merely borrowed my husband’s phone and pulled it up through Google there. It can be pulled up a time or two before it goes behind a paywall. The comment from Chicago said “a university of Chicago spokeswoman said the school “considers application extension requests”. She declined to comment further.” The student who was quoted got an email allowing them to extend their deadline a few days.
The article also said that the university of Chicago email “said it was sent because the recipient requested information from the school or indicated on a standardized test that he or she was interested in receiving material from colleges “. The email also said “we understand issues can often arise during the application process that prevent you from submitting by the deadline, and would never want those issues to hinder your college choices” if you still want to apply to the university of Chicago, you can!”
Here is a link with a partial reprint: https://www.crainscleveland.com/scott-suttell-blog/students-didnt-even-have-ask-extension
Jeepers, what’s the big deal? It’s good for everyone to have some sort of application deadline, but it’s not as if any specific deadline has moral or religious significance, or that the concept of a “deadline” means that it has to be unwaivable for any reason. Deadlines are inherently arbitrary; there’s no reason to elevate their arbitrariness to some sort of ethical principle, such that deviating from them should bring shame and censure.
Admissions departments are in the business of evaluating candidates and admitting them (or not). They all pretty much want to cast their nets as widely as possible, whether for nefarious reasons (lowering admission rates to make their college look more selective) or admirable ones (looking for that one diamond in the rough who may not have understood there was an early deadline until too late). Or just to justify their own existence.
This is nothing really new. Many years ago, I started applications to three colleges, but completed applications only to two of them. However, my scores, transcript, and recommendations had been sent to all three, and I had interviewed at the third college. In early February, I got what was essentially a likely letter from the third college saying that they were prepared to admit me, and waiving their (long passed) application deadline and their essay requirements.
In that case, the motivation was clear: They had enough information to know I was a good candidate; they wanted to admit me. They wanted a chance to convince me to enroll even though it was pretty easy to infer that I had probably applied to other colleges that I preferred. They weren’t going to let little details like the application deadline or specific application requirements stand in the way of that. There was only one thing they were not prepared to waive: they couldn’t admit me unless I sent them back a signed application form, even if incomplete.
Here is the recap text from the link in post #15. Mods can remove it if they think there is a copyright issue. (I’m assuming that the second source is “fair use”, so this must be as well.)
While these schools may not be overly concerned with dramatically decreasing their already low acceptance rates, the WORST thing they could report on their admissions update is that applications went DOWN for the year. They may be trying to avoid this.
Exactly. Some AOs and/or enrollment mgmt staff are comped/bonused on factors such as application growth, diversity targets and yield increases (but acceptance rate not so much). Trustees at many schools track these measurements closely and a VP of Admissions and Enrollment where apps decline and/or yield decreases may not keep their job for very long.