UChicago '26er here:
Informal polling of the class during the summer indicated the breakdown was roughly as follows:
46.9% ED1
22.1% ED2
10.6% EA
14.2% RD
6.2% QuestBridge
(Sample size ~110)
2 Likes
So basically 3/4 through some kind of binding application (ED or QB)?
2 Likes
Very helpful … thank you 
3 Likes
Just a quick stats note.
With 110 samples, the margin of error is about 9%. So while you can say that ED1 + ED2 is very likely between 60%-80%, you can’t estimate the other categories with much certainty.
4 Likes
Plus Questbridge.
I am hopeful that there are real numbers for Questbridge that are available. Perhaps from Questbridge itself?
1 Like
The sample/survey included Questbridge, so the numbers re: Questbridge are just as “real” as the rest. I’m not statistician but if you just throw out Questbridge don’t you need to need to adjust your denominator and sample size?
Also, I don’t understand why you think you can just throw out these numbers in the first place
As a rough approximation, you can say that the the true value of (ED1 + ED2 + QB) is somewhere between 66% - 84%. However, from the limited sample size, you cannot say that the true value of QB by itself is going to be anything close to 6%. It could easily be twice that.
1 Like
Couldn’t something similar be said about EA, for example?. I mean it seems the whole exercise is interesting but not necessarily reliable. I just don’t see much justification for singling out QB in this regard.
Well if UChicago released the numbers, we wouldn’t be speculating. When it comes to QuestBridge, there is another organization that could release that specific number.
2 Likes
Seems a different issue. Still don’t see why this would justify your partial exclusion of QB in your original calculation, but not worth exploring further, probably.
My last post on this digression as well, but in my mind, they are different, even though they are all binding.
ED1 and ED2 primarily helps the college. It guarantees the college will enroll a set of well-qualified students that tend to skew wealthy. It allows UChicago to remain fully “need-blind” because ED1/ED2 itself discourages high need students from applying. But of course ED has a large number of downsides that I won’t bother repeating here.
QuestBridge on the other hand is UChicago being generous. A larger percentage here is a good thing.
2 Likes
To say that QB is the college being “generous” seems not only inaccurate, it is frankly pretty insulting to these kids. QB allows these colleges to lock in kids they very much desire and want to attend, which is of great benefit to the schools. In other words, QB “helps the college.”
1 Like
UChicago is being generous in that these students are high need and the college is footing the bill. Nowhere did I say that these are not capable kids.
1 Like
The implication here is that QB doesn’t help the college. (QB “on the other hand . . .”) That is false. The college wouldn’t do it if it didn’t help the college achieve its goals. This isn’t charity, it is a targeted program to get students they desire.
Not sure why all the nitpickiness about QB, or why we are necessarily giving credence to an informal student poll of 110 students. Chicago takes matched QB finalists in ED1 round (that would be the biggest proportion, and not much reason to breakout QB from ED1). U Chicago also takes QB applicants in all other rounds.
U Chicago says they have ‘more than 400 QB students on campus’ here, so lets assume roughly 100 total QB students per year, which translates to around 5%-6% of the class (so does jive with the student informal survey, 2041 accepted students in Class of 2026, 1729 enrolled), QB acceptances are not binding in EA and RD.
QB does not publish number of students admitted/enrolled at each QB partner.
@jbstillflying typically has good estimates of UChicago classes by admission round.
1 Like
My understanding of @hebegebe analysis is that the EDs help the college’s financial goals and QB helps the college fulfill its educational/institutional goals. The two goals are not the same. There’s an interesting series of Revisionist History episodes on college admissions. In one there is an admissions officer speaking about how a private college (not U of C) squares off the financial with the educational goals. It’s interesting.
Apologies to @hebegebe if I misread your analysis.
2 Likes
Sorry folks, haven’t done that for at least a couple years now. What we do know is that UChicago (at least prior to the pandemic) would admit about half the class under the “early” Nov 1 application deadline, and the remainder of the class under the Jan 1 deadline. How they divide between ED and non-binding is unknown, but with an 85% or so overall yield it doesn’t even really matter since they are very likely admitting EA’s and RD’s who are overwhelmingly matriculating. Not sure the purpose of this thread, but the best advice for any applicant is to apply under the plan that works best for them - if they are a good fit they’ll be a strong contender; if not a good fit, ED won’t help.
4 Likes
Yes. Thank you.
1 Like
We were very aware of the advantages of ED and, even if we had known just how much more advantageous it was for schools like UChicago, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that we would not allow our kids to apply via ED. It’s just not sensible for our family. We’ll wait and hope for the best. The silver lining is that we’ll be on spring break when approx 7-8 of his decisions will be coming out so at least we’ll be nice and relaxed if the bad news starts pouring in.
2 Likes