<p>^ Didn’t a good chunk of that cut come from the fact that NU massively expanded their ED program, though? Given that ED students are typically weaker then their RD counterparts, this would seem to put downward pressure on scores.</p>
<p>"your admit rate, in two years, gets cut in half. "</p>
<p>2014= 23%
2015 =18 %
2016 =15%</p>
<p>23% to 15% does not equal 50% drop in admit rate in last 2 years.
nice try though…</p>
<p>I don’t get the point of your post, either, annasdad. You have plainly said you will never have any personal skin in the U Chi or NU game. So what’s your motivation in sharing this “insight” outside of the IMSA community? It’s wholly irrelevant to everyone else. </p>
<p>The facts as you presented them are this:</p>
<p>IMSA’s Class of 2012 enjoyed a 30% acceptance rate at U Chicago. That’s 200+% higher than the 13% rate for the applicant pool at large, which is particularly impressive considering IMSA matriculated only 3 students last year and 2 this year, which is 200+% below overall yield. And you are complaining that IMSA is still getting double benefit at both ends of the equation?!</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s any aha moment in your realization U Chi and NU are tired of handing out trophy acceptances for IMSA to claim, without receiving commensurate return.</p>
<p>Historical feeder relationships have changed all over the country because of any number of factors, including the Common App and application boom; the increased need for families to focus on merit awards and financial aid; and the willingness–even eagerness–of students to “go away” to school. Like students everywhere, IMSA kids are now choosing a wider variety of schools than ever before. And it looks like they are doing very well. <a href=“https://www3.imsa.edu/system/files/2012%20Profile_0.pdf[/url]”>https://www3.imsa.edu/system/files/2012%20Profile_0.pdf</a> I think poster Blueash above proved that those IMSA students who possess both the credentials and desire to go to U Chi and NU will still be competitive candidates and earn admits. That’s how it works outside of the IMSA bubble!</p>
<p>I like checking into the Parents forum because the majority of contributors aspire to respectfully share facts, differing opinions and compassionate support of their fellow parents during this time of big life change, which is fraught with all manner of emotional, developmental and financial impact. But to be honest, annasdad, it bums me out to logon only to hear your negative spin…again…for the umpteenth time…about my own child’s college choice. And if I’m really honest, my knee jerk reaction is to “want to do bad things (to) you” (singing True Blood!), i.e., poke you with whatever negative spin I could come up with about your child’s college choice. Because that’s all it feels like you are doing to those of us who have invested ourselves in U Chi and NU! However, I don’t know Truman (I think it is?) and have resisted the urge to even look it up…because really, my feeling on that count is the same as I feel toward all other families. Simply and truly: I couldn’t be happier that your child and family are excitedly looking forward to your child’s college journey at the school so carefully selected! Perhaps in future posts you could extend the same sensitivity to those who have similarly carefully selected U Chi, NU and the other schools you have discounted for your family? I realize I’m old and Pollyanish…but I think if you gave thoughtful consideration to a kindler, gentler approach, it would go a long way.</p>
<p>Txartemis, I dont have anything against NU or UChicago, nor was the point of my post to lament the decline of IMSA admissions to either, nor did I say anything critical of either - other than to decry the impact of USNWR on both, which is something they unfortunately share with most of the other highly selective colleges in the United States. </p>
<p>The point was to offer some insight into what’s going on there from the perspective of someone who is highly connected with the admissions staffs at both schools, has been for years, and shared it with a group of parents. If that causes you to get all defensive, I can’t control that. If you don’t think what I said is worthwhile, hit the Next button and move on. </p>
<p>For the record, they’re both fine schools, and the kids who got into either and their parents should rejoice. Students at either have an opportunity to get fine educations, just as do students at several thousand other colleges across the country.</p>
<p>TXArtemis,
Truly lovely post. Well said. But sadly it may fall on deaf ears. And please don’t ask for the data to support the above poster’s opinion. The same reference can be found over and over and OVER all over cc.</p>
<p>After jumping in and out of this thread a few times, I’m still not too clear as to what was the point of the original post. It seems the OP is cynical about the integrity of the admission process at a couple of highly selective universities that happen to get many applicants from his D’s high school. His cynicism may be understandable or even justified. However, all that has been presented so far is rather limited, hearsay evidence that concerns about “yield” may be playing a role in admission decisions at those schools.</p>
<p>Is it a bad thing if admissions committees take into consideration an applicant’s demonstrated desire to enroll, if accepted? I would prefer an admission process that is a objectively focused primarily on academic qualifications. However, I also can understand why colleges desire students who are enthusiastic about attending their school (quite apart from any issues related to US News rankings). And on balance, I would think a desire to improve college performance against objective metrics is generally a good thing (although we can argue about whether yield, or the factors behind USNWR rankings, are in fact the most appropriate metrics.)</p>
<p>IIRC, which I may not, yield doesn’t factor into USNWR and admissions rate is only 1.5%. Do I have that right?</p>
<p>I haven’t read all the replies, so forgive me if this has all been said a million times.</p>
<p>U of C went on a mission a few years back to explode their applications so that they’d appear more selective. They went from a school with a high yield from self selecting students who found their place in a fantastic school, to a cookie cutter version of so many others - all in the name of “prestige” and better rankings. UofC didn’t need “prestige” and better rankings - they’ve always been highly regarded for what they do. </p>
<p>No wonder that yield is down - when you move away from your core, and go on a mission to solicit so many applications, you will have lots of students applying who are adding you to a list of lottery schools.</p>
<p>^My own impression, from what I have heard at my own kid’s school (selective private) was that many applied to UC ea, and most applied with the idea of trying to have a top school acceptance as a “safety” and then applying to even “more prestigious” schools for regular admission. I put all this in quotes, as this info is second and third hand. (My own kid applied ED elsewhere and was not among those with that “strategy”.) Not surprisingly, UC admissions must know that many hope to have that coveted EA in their back pocket, and are faced with trying to sort through the massive amount of applications. They need students who will attend, not just those who want a top quality “safety”. Most did not get an EA acceptance at UC.</p>
<p>From my own limited observation over the last few years, few who applied were admitted EA to UC. Of those admitted EA, a high percentage did attend. Those that did attend may not have been admitted to other schools that they were hoping for. For at least one who did not attend, a better scholarship elsewhere was a deciding factor. A very few were additionally accepted in the regular decision round. </p>
<p>IMO, the non binding, non single choice, EA strategy brings in a lot of applications for the school. The strategy of having an early acceptance at a great school for the student, often does not work.</p>
<p>Yield is about admitting those students who forsake all others to love you back. The ultimate valentine is ED application - I love you so much I’ll pledge not to go elsewhere. If, theoretically, some elite school wanted to admit 80%, 90% of their class ED, I would think it an interesting and reasonable move. A campus filled with kids who want to be there is great. I think EA is weaselly and SCEA even more so. Either we pledge our mutual troth, or we don’t.</p>
<p>I think yield is completely out now, it was 1.5%.
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is statiscally true for non hook students.</p>
<p>There are a lot of reasons to track student interest, and, honestly, the rankings are the least important. Shapiro comes from a really cohesive LAC with a strong student body who really chooses that school. Williams is an interesting school, that way; and students really do choose it, since it is so unique.</p>
<p>One of the things he knows is how to create an atmosphere which produces a sense of student community and motivated learners, as well as how to create a sense of “we are NU.” Don’t underestimate the importance of this. What he is also finding out, at this point, is who chooses NU in this way. It answers a lot of questions to find out “who loves us?” Don’t you think?</p>
<p>The least of those questions is what number in rankings you will be. I suspect it has much more to do with this than with USNEWS, regardless of what anyone thinks.</p>
<p>^Gives you lot more involved alums, great for fundraising. Why does everything need to be about USNWR?</p>
<p>In the end, there is much to be said about finding those who really want to come to a school than admitting 5000 kids and waiting to see which 2000 show up. The real issue is how do you find them.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It’s wrong to say that the University of Chicago has gone from a high yield on a low number of self-selected applications to a lower yield on a high number of less self-selected applications. I have followed Chicago admissions closely since my older child got interested in it in 11th grade, so roughly the past ten years. For the first 6-7 of those, Chicago’s yield fluctuated year-to-year in a narrow range, roughly 36-38%, as applications rose steadily but modestly. The past few years, before this one, it looked like there might be a modest upward trend; this accompanied explosive growth in the number of applications received after Chicago adopted the Common Application in 2008-2009. But even then, all that meant was that last year the yield was just under 40%. This year, with another ginormous increase in applications received, the yield increased to almost 47% – a single-year bump in relative terms that’s basically unprecedented, anywhere, without a major shift in admissions engineering. (Harvard increased its yield by about the same number of percentage points this year, when it reinstituted SCEA. But in relative terms, that was only about a 9% increase in yield, vs. 17% at Chicago.)</p></li>
<li><p>Yield isn’t really “out” of the USNWR formula, it’s just not “in” as a factor separate from admission rate. Admission rate is purely a function of three things: number of slots available, number of applications received, and yield. And, in some cases, a fourth factor: admissions office error in projecting yield. Basically, slots divided by yield is the number of applications a college can accept, and that divided by applications received is the admission rate. Admissions staff tend to be unable to change the number of slots available much, so they devote their efforts, appropriately, to increasing applications, and increasing yield.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t know whether what anna’s GC reported is right or not. I suspect there’s a germ of truth in it, but much blown up. But, at least to date, there is no mystery as to whether the University of Chicago tracks demonstrated interest (visits, calls, etc.) and factors that into admissions decisions: No. The Admissions Office has said that over and over for years, in every possible forum. They do a lot to engage prospective applicants, and to get responses from them, but so far it is clear that no information about that makes it into the application files. And they have been very clear that visiting is not important, in part because they want to recruit lower-income students nationally, and they want to make certain no one feels disadvantaged because they can’t afford to visit a distant college.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“She said her response was: “How would I know? I’m not the kid’s parent!””</p>
<p>This is the part that dropped my jaw. Maybe she is responsible for too many students; maybe she isn’t good at her job. But it is astonishing to me that a GC would tell a parent that she has no way of knowing a student’s preference. She would know because the student told her. Barring that, she would know because she asked. How in the world can you help a student apply if you don’t know his/her goals? In my experience, you can’t stop the students from waxing eloquent about their choices. Sure, kids may change their minds at the last minute, but in that case, they’d surprise their parents, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, annasdad, but IMO, every acceptee at a tippy top college has something ‘compelling’ in their application. To me, that goes without saying. Now perhaps you want to make the case that the D1 athletes and other hooked candidates comprise that bottom quartile…but to me, a hook, is different than a compelling app.</p>
<p>And as to the ‘substance’: I was clearly referring to matriculants which are reported on the CDS. There is no doubt that the average NU acceptee is higher, and is every year, but then some/much of the top xx % of those acceptees will attend elsewhere due to all kinds of reasons (Ivy prestige/financial aid, merit money, combined bs/md programs, etc).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that’s theoretically true, then the goal of admitting more of the class in ED would conflict with the goal of getting higher-and-higher scoring kids to make USNWR happy. There doesn’t seem to be any issue at any of the elite schools of not having enough high-scoring kids to go around, nor is there any evidence that any school that is admitting more via ED is “suffering” by having their overall scores pulled down.</p>
<p>In fact, just to be a bit controversial, the biggest characteristic of an ED pool is that it is likely more affluent (=don’t have to worry so much about comparing finaid offers) and that in and of itself is likely correlated with higher scores, for those who care about that sort of thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is absolutely a spot-on description of what I have seen as an alum and a parent from Schapiro. Without making any comparisons to any other schools - because I simply don’t have a basis for that comparison - this is his philosophy in a nutshell, and it carries through in every single communication and event the university puts on. It is very apparent even in the last few years, and <em>worlds</em> above what it was like in the olden days when I was there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps that may be another motivation (or desired side effect) for encouraging ED – if the school’s financial aid budget is in trouble, then accepting more students from the less-financial-aid-needing ED pool may keep the financial aid budget above water.</p>
<p>^^^^^^This!</p>
<p>ED would eliminate those looking to compare financial aid offers. And not just from a few schools but all schools accepted to. </p>
<p>And since Chicago was EA applying there EA meant you were NOT applying SCEA somewhere else. But the EA was non-binding allowing for comparison of financial aid for other EA schools and RD decisions (also allowing for time to fax back and forth other offers.)</p>
<p>Our family’s one data point was Chicago having one of the lowest FA packages compared to Cal Tech, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, Amherst, Swat, Dartmouth, Cornell, Vandy, Northwestern, Rice and Penn (best offer). Difference of $10K-$25K.</p>
<p>Kat
saw this again a few years later in med school admissions as well</p>