<p>I would take some issue with the notion that more applicants produces a more “qualified” student body. It depends on who those applicants are. Further, Chicago has always had a strong student body. In recent years, scores have not been a large factor in deciding admissions, I hope it remains that way.</p>
<p>Wow. These numbers are astounding. I’d heard from various sources that EA apps were “way up,” but I figured some of it was just boasting, and that there would be maybe a 30-35% actual jump from 2009 to 2010. In short, I thought Chicago’s EA number would stabilize around the 4K mark (which I think is a pretty healthy number for a college of about 1300 per class). I really didn’t think the 54% jump from 2009 to 2010 would happen. </p>
<p>Getting 5855 EA apps - that’s nearly as many TOTAL apps the school received when I applied to U of C. I think my year in the 90s, there were around 6500 apps TOTAL. </p>
<p>In terms of projecting to the final accept rate, Phuriku, you mentioned earlier that the overall acceptance rate would be in the 22-25% range. I’m not sure if that’s an accurate projection. I’m assuming as the Common App is in its second year and with strong recruiting techniques, Chicago can see a modest bump in RD apps. To be conservative, similar to last year, lets say Chicago has about a 10-12% increase on the 10K apps it received last year. That would mean around 11K RD apps this year, and a total of about 17K apps. Assuming Chicago’s yield is consistent, Nondorf would look to accept around 3500 students. This would lead to about a 20.5% accept rate (3500/17000). That’s a very significant drop from last year’s 26.8% percent rate.</p>
<p>Note, I’m being pretty conservative in my estimates here. As other people mentioned, and from what I’ve heard from people involved with the U of C admissions process, Nondorf is taking a much more relationships-based, expansive approach to admissions. Dean O’Neill had a known affinity for NYC and the east coast in general, and he often did info sessions in that area. Moreover, O’Neill relied heavily on direct contact with students through clever mailings, and less contact with college counselors. </p>
<p>Nondorf, from what I know, has continued the mass mailings, but also began the initiative to establish closer relationships between Chicago’s admissions officers and HS counselors. From what I know, Chicago is recruiting more heavily in traditionally under-pursued regions (like the south), and its admissions officers are on notice to be well, generally more approachable and receptive. Even when I volunteered at the admissions office as an undergrad, it was a bit of an aloof place. Nondorf is trying to change that a bit. </p>
<p>Coming back to my main point, again, my projection was pretty conservative. Based on how shrewdly Nondorf wants to deal with yield (and he’s known for increasing yield), I’m assuming Chicago’s acceptance rate would be more in the 19-22% range. I’m assuming, conservatively, here that apps will probably be in the 17K range, and that Nondorf may bump yield up to about 38% with an accept rate of about 20%. </p>
<p>Again, for an alum, admissions numbers like these are kind of mind-boggling. I went to Chicago at the height of the “self-selective” years, where our accept rate was at least 30-40% higher than most of our peers. </p>
<p>To put it in perspective, I think Harvard and Yale were accepting around 20% of applicants in the 90s, and now accept around 10% of applicants - a ten percent drop over 10-12 years. In the 90s, Chicago generally accepted around 60% of its applicants. Assuming a 20% accept rate this year, that’s a 40% drop in about a decade. I can’t think of another major university that has seen this drastic a change in admissions. Around ten years ago, I think UPenn accepted around 35%, and now accepts around 20%. Similarly, Cornell accepted around 35%, now accepts around 20%. I think Brown has dropped from maybe 30% to 15%, Duke from maybe 30% to 20%, etc. </p>
<p>When assessed over time, Chicago’s change in admissions is quite startling.</p>
<p>(Post Deleted)</p>
<p>One other interesting slant on the news - having so many EA apps could allow Nondorf significant flexibility with the final admissions numbers. From what I know, traditionally, EA yield tends to be higher than RD yield. If Nondorf selects carefully and separates the wheat from the chaff (meaning strong students who would probably matriculate), I’m assuming the EA yield could be around 42-45% (I think Chicago’s EA yield is traditionally around this range). </p>
<p>So, assume Nondorf accepts around 1300 EA applicants. With traditional EA yield, possibly around 600 of those admits will matriculate. To fill the remaining 700 or so slots in the class, Nondorf would admit about 2000 RD applicants. So total, to create a class of around 1300, Nondorf would send out about 3300 acceptances. All of a sudden, despite receiving such a boom in apps (and supposedly so many “not true Chicago” apps), Chicago’s yield would go up from about 36% to about 40% in one year. </p>
<p>With so many EA apps - apps from students ostensibly with a strong interest in Chicago, Nondorf & co. could really create some drastic changes in Chicago’s final numbers in only one year. So from my days of 60% accept rate, 32% yield, we’d all of a sudden have a 19% accept rate and a 40% yield.</p>
<p>Cue7: I agree with your analysis and your numbers, and they actually match my own pretty well. I said that the EA acceptance rate would be around 22-25% (since the EA rate tends to be ~3% higher than overall rate), so that my prediction for overall acceptance rate was 19-22%, the same as yours.</p>
<p>Ah i understand phuriku. Unfortunately, I still think the EA accept rate you listed is a bit high. Last year, Chicago accepted about 30% of its EA applicants, or around 1100 of the roughly 3600 EA applicants. This, year, with such a boom in EA apps, if Chicago holds true to its traditional practices, I can’t imagine accepting much more 1300 students early (even that would be about a 20% increase in the amount of offers given out early). 1300 early admits is a 22.2% early accept rate. Again, if Chicago holds true to its past practices of looking to have about 35% of the class be the early admits, it wouldn’t really be prudent to accept much more than 1300 early (since about 600 of those 1300 accepted would matriculate). </p>
<p>Now, what’s interesting is if Nondorf decides to accept a LOT more early, and basically have more of Chicago’s class filled with early admits. He could take advantage of the higher yield of early applicants and really change Chicago’s admissions numbers substantially in one year. For example, if Nondorf accepts say, 1500 early rather than the traditional 1100 early, this means about 700 students will matriculate at about a 46% EA yield. For RD, Nondorf would only need to accept about 1600-1700 students to fill the remaining 600 slots. </p>
<p>What does this mean? Adopting a strategy that relies more heavily on filling the class with EA applicants could lead to drastic statistical change. Using this method, Chicago would accept around 3100-3200 applications overall, about 400 less than last year. The EA accept rate would be around 25%, the RD accept rate would be a startlingly low 14% (assuming a modest 10-12% bump in RD apps, it could be more), and the overall accept rate would be about 18% (3100/17100 total apps). Moreover, the yield would be about 42% - a 6% increase from last year. </p>
<p>Again, that’s if Nondorf goes in this direction and decides to radically rely more on EA. If he keeps the traditional method of filling about 35% of the class with EA admits, the numbers would be more like 20-22% EA accept rate (~1200/5855 EA apps), about a 19-21% RD accept rate (~2200/11200 RD apps), and an overall accept rate of about 20%. The yield would be around 38% (1300/3400 total accepted). </p>
<p>Staying true to the traditional composition of the Chicago class would lead to less drastic change in the admissions numbers. Yes, the overall accept rate would plunge by around 6%, but the yield would stay about the same, and there’s not a huge advantage to applying regular (as there is at other schools).</p>
<p>Filling in more of the class early would create really significant change. There would now be a significant benefit to applying early (25% EA accept rate as opposed to a 14% RD accept rate)m and the yield would shoot up to around 42% overall. </p>
<p>Personally, I prefer the method where there is no huge advantage given to early applicants. I think it’s better for students to have more choices, and I wish there wouldn’t be so much of a disparity between early accept rates and RD rates. Chicago traditionally kept EA and RD rates similar (last year, I think it was maybe 30% EA accept rate, maybe 25% RD accept rate), and changing that may not work to the benefit of the students. </p>
<p>Which way would be best for Nondorf to go?</p>
<p>Interesting analysis by Cue7. What I don’t accept as a given is, whether the yield from the class of 2014 EA kids who are accepted is about the same regardless of how many Nondorf decides to accept from the EA pool. </p>
<p>For instance, could it be that if he accepts, say, 1200, the yield is 45%, but yield will go down to say, 40% if he accepts 1500 (I am just using these numbers as an example: no idea whether these are in the ball park). What I am saying is, could we really rely on the SAME yield regardless of how many Nondorf decides to accept out of the EA pool? Could it be the case that the more you accept out of the EA pool, the higher the rate of “noise” (if you know what I mean) resulting in a lower yield. </p>
<p>I am assuming that such a dramatic increase (EA number) does not only reflect more kids who are genuinely interested in Chicago, but also the “what the heck” kids who would like to use Chicago EA acceptance as a safety net. Dunno. I am not an expert in the admissions game: there are others who are more knowledgeable. I am just applying some common sense here. I could be completely wrong.</p>
<p>This year will be an interesting one to watch. I am glad that we are not in the game this year. What we learn this year will give us a lot to think about for next year.</p>
<p>Chicago has traditionally done a good job of marketing to EA kids. I know in my daughter’s case her Chicago early acceptance (and her Columbia ED deferral) really focused her attention on Chicago in a way it hadn’t been earlier, and it went way up in her estimation over the ensuing months, so that she was enthusiastic about attending (almost as much as she would have been had she gotten into Columbia). Five years later, she is living in New York and very, very happy to have gone to Chicago rather than Columbia.</p>
<p>There are two points to this. First, I suspect Chicago’s EA yield WILL remain pretty constant, assuming that it selects the same sorts of students it has in the past. Some will be accepted ED at Columbia or Brown. Some will later be accepted RD at HYPS or another competitive college and choose that. Some will get better financial aid elsewhere That’s all going to be a pretty constant percentage. Of the rest, some will be happy to rest on their Chicago laurels, and others will not get accepted at colleges they like more, or will decide that they like Chicago more than any other school. </p>
<p>(I am surprised to see that Chicago’s EA yield is only 40% or so. I was under the impression that it was closer to 50%, but I think Cue7 knows and I don’t.)</p>
<p>Second, it really doesn’t matter much whether, at the time of application, a student is in love with the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago is a pretty great institution these days, and easy to fall in love with. Some do before they apply, some do before they accept, and some wait until they have been there for a while. (Some never do, but I don’t think it’s that many.) I think the attitude among the admissions staff is (and should be) “We are going to accept the students we think are best for us, and not worry about where they rank us today. We will get enough of them to fill a class, and it will be a stronger class overall than if we accepted fewer kids but ones more likely to attend.”</p>
<p>ROTCherewego - you make some really good points. I think by this point, analysis of yield has become quite methodical. Nondorf probably has a rough sense about who he admits will probably come, who is more of a toss up, and who will go elsewhere. Last year, I think EA yield was probably around 45%. So last year out of 3600 applications, Dean O’Neill found the 1100 that led to a 45% yield. I’m assuming out of 5855, Nondorf could similarly find 1500 that would most likely lead to a 45% yield while maintaining the traditional Chicago requirements. </p>
<p>Overall, as you say, it is a very interesting time for Chicago admissions. The paradigm is shifting.</p>
<p>Quick edit - JHS, I think Chicago’s EA yield is generally around 45%. Maybe last year it dropped a bit to around 40%, but I think traditionally it’s been closer to 45%. Last year was a bit strange with all the economic factors, so I’m assuming this year Nondorf and Co. could get it back on track.</p>
<p>One other quick note , JHS, the mantra you described was Chicago’s old admissions policy. It was basically, as Dean O’Neill often said, “we accept the best, and take as many as we can get.” </p>
<p>I’m assuming that still occurs, but since, well, Harvard Yale etc. are just accepting even less, and Chicago becomes increasingly attractive, it could bode well for Chicago’s yield. I’d actually like Chicago to focus a bit more on yield, and continue to send out good vibes to accepted students to get them to come. Within the next 5-6 years, I’d like to see overall yield go up to around 45%.</p>
<p>In my experience with kids considering Chicago, yield has less to do with marketing and more to do with financial aid. I know kids that preferred Chicago over top Ivy’s, but could not turn down the more than $10,000/year in more FA. Until there is parity in FA, Chicago’s yield will remain about where it is.</p>
<p>While it is true that O’neill was set on selecting the “best,” the definition of best may have been a little different. Only time will tell.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to compare the yield among those who are getting FA and those who aren’t. If there is a significant difference in the yield among the two groups, then, yes increasing FA will be a very important factor for increasing the yield.</p>
<p>However, if there is no significant difference, then the way to increase the yield is to do better marketing and positioning so that U Chicago gets a better mind share among kids who are accepted by U Chicago and its peer institutions.</p>
<p>Furthermore, even if FA is an important for the yield, U Chicago can still increase the yield without significantly increasing FA: not everyone makes a final college decision base on $10K/year difference. If U Chicago is powerful enough a brand, it can convince some families to overcome some deficit in terms of the total FA package and send their kids to U Chicago any way. There are many HYP kids who are not getting any FA, got some merit awards from other good schools, and still decided to attend HYP. </p>
<p>Such is the power of a strong brand. Do you really think everybody is buying iPhone purely because of the personally well researched feature comparison between iPhone and whatever else is comparable? With a fraction of a world market share - much lower than its competitors such as Nokia, etc, iPhone is getting whopping 32% of the total aggregate operating profit of the global cell phone market. Their brand strength allows them charge $$$ more than their competitors for comparable features: product differentiation or superiority alone cannot possibly explain the difference.</p>
<p>Whichever way you look at it, increasing the brand power of U Chicago is a GOOD thing for the college: I have not heard of a single case of a product failure and business decline due to the increasing brand strength. With a stronger brand power, U Chicago can put together better, more competitive, and yes, more “life of the mind” student body than it was able to do previously, which further increases the brand power. This is a virtuous cycle. I believe this is how HYP emerged as such a global brand. </p>
<p>Finally, without any of the above strategies, there is still an ultimate black magic trick that can help U Chicago increase the yield. It’s Tuft method, that is, rejecting preemptively candidates that are too good and surely are likely to be admitted by HYP and will ultimately chose one of these and abandon U Chicago. A candidate with 4.0/2400 who cured cancer and deciphered the mystery of Atlantis and Leimura will surely be admitted by H, and will pick H over Chicago, so, just reject her so that she does not pollute the yield statistics. Already, there are many universities that use this black magic to maintain their pristine yield rate.</p>
<p>I am not advocating that U Chicago stoop that low. I am just listing all these to demonstrate that U Chicago can manage its yield very well even in the absence of a significant infusion of fund for increased FA.</p>
<p>Maybe the FA has changed drasticaly over the last couple of years. Haven’t heard anybody mention the $100 million gift to U of C in 2007 earmarked for undergraduate FA (Odyssey). Could this have anything to do with these wondrous numbers we are seeing lately?</p>
<p>As for the little black magic, I don’t think so. We are looking at a drive for yield. What’s wrong with other schools having to use the Tuft method because they know the student would rather go to HYP & C if accepted…</p>
<p>Speaking only from personal experience of going throught the early application process with my son, I think would be a grave mistake for U of C to employ the “Tufts” method. It is impossible these days to predict who HYP will admit! At my son’s school U of C is almost always the next in line for these really bright kids who don’t have that “who knows what” that HYP are looking for. Why give up on these kids just because U of C was only number 2 or 3 on their list? They often wind up at U of C and are thankful that they did.</p>
<p>Also, there are quite a few kids these days who would actually choose U of C over HYP just because of the unique brand. I think this number is growing.</p>
<p>The U of C process typically targeted kids that may share different characteristics than the typical HYP student exemplifies. There is overlap and many of these kids also applied and would like to go to HYP. But perhaps, what U of C wanted was not necessarily what HYP was looking for and vice versa. It is not that one is better than the other. In S1’s year, 5 kids applied to UofC from his HS, 2 where accepted, 1 wait listed and the others rejected. Of the WL and rejected kids 1 was accepted (among other places) at Princeton, 1 Duke (the WL kid), and the other Yale. </p>
<p>I asked Ted O’Neill what they looked for, he said a student who above all else likes to play with ideas and shows a love of learning. He said they could usually tell the planned and manufactured applications designed for elite school admission. Outstanding students who possess those qualities are not necessarily what HYP are looking for, though these qualities may overlap with others. Of the 2 accepted, one attended (the other chose NW over UPenn & Chicago). I don’t know if this will change with the new VP, let’s hope not.</p>
<p>A few years a go I did read about a survey of students who were accepted to UofC but chose elsewhere. The #1 reason listed was FA. This was before the new gift the University received, perhaps that is changed. The #2 reason was second thoughts about the difficulty of the place. Liked another school better was surprisingly not listed in the top two. (If I get some time perhaps I can search for it, but it was embedded in something else.)</p>
<p>My understanding is that the Odyssey eliminates some loans for folks below a certain income, but is not as big a deal as folks had hoped it might be. I fear that for most middle- to upper-class middle families, the FA picture isn’t so pretty.</p>
<p>I am in complete agreement with idad that Chicago should absolutely maintain “the life of the mind” motto. In fact, that promise of intellectual rigor is what convinced us that it’s worth the money and let S1 turn down a full ride scholarship from elsewhere. He told us about a Durkheim paper he is writing for the soc core. Hah… Wait till he has to read Thorstein Veblen. If one were to invent a new torture method dubbed as “slow death by painful reading”, Veblen would be a good starting point. I suffered and muddled through this a few decades ago, why shouldn’t he? ;)</p>
<p>Where we diverge is whether the increasing reputation and a decreasing acceptance rate will have a deleterious effect on “the life of the mind” of not. I think there is no problem. According to O’Neill,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is the case (meaning, they can tell), then the better reputation and a decreasing acceptance rate means they will still be able to pick the ones with the right intellectual leaning, only, with better qualifications resulting in a more competitive student body. </p>
<p>By the way, we did not know anything about Chicago’s culture, motto, etc when S was applying to EA. Nothing about “intellectual thirst” in his essays. His main essay was all about capitalism and his plans to become a leader in the economics/finance scene and how he plans to accomplish it. If anybody wanted to sabotage his/her Chicago essay, that would have been it. I still don’t know how he got in. Maybe O’Neil’s team realized that he absolutely did not “game the system”, and that got him a brownie point??? 
</p>
<p>Personally, I liked his essay very much: it actually showed him as he is: a very happy kid with perfect stats who, on paper, comes across as a smart lazy kid, who blissfully underperformed his potential in terms of college resume that is mostly devoid of any fancy sounding institutionally granted awards and such, but it was certainly NOT the “life of the mind Chicago essay”.</p>
<p>It was after his EA acceptance, I started to do research on U Chicago mostly to “pump” my son up since I anticipated rejections from HYP (I wanted to soften the blow). Then, I REALLY fell in love with Chicago head over heels and thought that it’s a perfect school for him. So, I am in favor of Chicago admitting kids who may not look on the paper as the “quirky intellectual” type in a hair shirt. Once they are there, most of the high performing students who are capable who did not start out that way will drink Chicago kook aid and will turn into an intellectual - even if it is by kicking and screaming. The ones who will be really misfits won’t come anyway as long as the school keeps the intellectual rigor as a differentiator in the curriculum and school requirements. I already see that in my son, who is now saying “when I have kids, I want them to go to a place where they get educated for the sake of getting educated”.</p>