I want to question the proposition that ED is designed to further the U of C’s financial goals. Yes, the kids with wealthier parents are more immune to financial considerations, but I highly doubt that ED is being used here as a filter to separate those kids out from the ones with need. Much more likely is that Chicago likes to select applicants who demonstrate love for its special brand of education, which is not for everyone, whether rich or poor. Going ED is a way of demonstrating this sort of commitment in an era in which Chicago’s much enhanced popularity means that applicants are no longer as “self-selecting” as in the days when it was a well-kept secret. For kids and their parents who have financial constraints it is pretty easy to form an accurate estimate of the aid that will be on offer in advance of making the ED application. Those who don’t wish to go to that trouble or who don’t believe the estimated figure makes sense for them should certainly avoid this form of application and probably avoid applying in any form to Chicago.
Studies and common app data show ED applicants are skewed relatively more affluent than other rounds of admission.
Schools also like ED rounds because they boost yield, which is a primary metric that many enrollment peeps not only track, but bonuses are based on (don’t know about UChicago specifically there).
This is a privileged take on things. Many families have to be able to compare financial aid offers because they can’t afford their EFC or don’t want to afford their EFC.
Any student who is a competitive applicant at U Chicago can earn significant merit $ at many other schools, so it can make sense for many families to shop around and not commit to an ED app. And for many of those students, they wouldn’t achieve better post-grad outcomes at Chicago vs. these merit giving schools (See the vast databases/studies of Dale and Krueger).
Why should those families who can’t commit be disadvantaged in the process because they won’t/can’t apply ED? I hope we see the end of ED admissions in the short term, there is significant pressure in today’s environment for schools to do so.
The question here is not whether such a correlation exists but whether it’s the raison d’etre or simply a side-effect (an unwelcome one in my estimation) of a real educational objective - to recruit a class specially attuned to a U of C education. No one needs to believe this, of course. It’s a free country, and the motivation to shop around is legitimate - if what you’re after is the best financial deal. And if you don’t feel anything especially appealing about the culture of the U of C, you should certainly avoid it. Many have indeed said they dislike that culture. That’s a good reason to steer clear of it.
Calling disagreement a sign of privilege is a slur, not an argument. It is in any event a rhetorical strategy a U of C education urges one to avoid.
Most students who seek to attend college have cost constraints. Those who don’t have cost constraints are privileged, just a fact, not a slur.
Chicago could certainly build their class without two ED rounds. They could replace ED with SCEA or sometime other type of restricted early action, if they really want students whose first choice is Chicago. U Chicago AOs are also facile at selecting students in EA and RD who fit what they are looking for, so seems no need for ED from that angle either.
Again I ask why should families who can’t commit to applying ED be disadvantaged in the application process? (assuming ED acceptance rates are higher than EA and RD, which we don’t know for sure because U Chicago is not transparent with their admissions data)
All true and nothing unique about Chicago here.
For black and Hispanic students and for students who come from less-educated families (in terms of their parents’ education), the estimates of the return to college selectivity remain large.
Key is the colleges that students in the study applied to. If the students applied to Chicago and chose a lesser regarded state flagship, and aren’t black, Hispanic or from less-educated family, it should hold.
It does seem that U of Chicago is making a deliberate effort to scoop up kids from prep schools and wealthy suburban publics who are seeing their slice of the pie at other selective schools diminish. This may well fit their intellectual mission to grab a bunch of smart and hard-working kids, but it also appears to be making them less inclusive from a socioeconomic perspective. The heavy reliance on ED is certainly a part of that.
All of these top schools are routinely characterized as highly rejective, and kids applying are told not to expect to get in since there are 10,000 identically perfect applicants out there. They get the message that the only way to increase their chances is to ED, otherwise they will not be going to a T19, T20, or T21 school. It is primarily those who can’t afford it or who have an uncertain situation (will divorced parent cooperate on CSS, for example) who are shut out of ED. But ED, thanks to the image spun around it, makes the college in question look innocent and good – they can claim they are just offering students a chance to express their enthusiasm and possibly spare them later application fees.
I think that is mostly a myth, and the overuse of ED has a lot more to do with financial reasons. Like legacy admissions, Z-lists, and other practices, admissions would be much fairer and more “meritocratic” if there were no ED. If something like ED really is necessary, a move to a ranked choice and matching system might be more appropriate.
Also, yield is only a measure of exclusivity and desirability, not educational quality. Focus on yield encourages more unfair practices like yield management, turning down highly qualified students because they are not “interested” enough.
Exactly. I did qualify my statement by saying for many students’ outcomes would be the same, regardless of school choice, and the groups you highlight are the ones who may benefit by going to more selective colleges which meet full need.
D&K have updated their earlier works…you can request the updated findings here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228303493_Estimating_the_Return_to_College_Selectivity_Over_the_Career_Using_Administrative_Earning_Data
It’s one thing to have cost constraints and another thing to make a decision strictly on the basis of minimization of costs. I’ve bought many a vehicle and many a suit that looked like a good deal at the time but proved not to be so in the actual result. I’d have been better off spending a little more - I’d have gotten much more in return. Same with choice of a college.
I don’t grant your assertion that ED applicants are disadvantaged financially by that mode of application. The disadvantage in a need-blind FA school is very slight, if it exists at all - assuming one wants to actually go to that school and not to whichever school makes the best offer. As I said, that latter strategy is fine with me. But it has little to do with privilege as such and a lot to do with a deal-making philosophy of life, something the privileged are not inherently averse to. Comparing privileges is a mug’s game.
I further don’t grant that the other modes of application carry the same weight in uniquely saying to the University that “you are the place for me.” I believe this to be the motivation for ED. If you think it’s not, you will need to convince me of more plausible motivations. A tool for recruiting a wealthier demographic cuts no mustard. Neither does upping selectivity and yield numbers - unless what you mean by this is simply a measure of the efficacy of recruiting students who really want to come to the University.
Sure, most schools have cultures that function as magnets to those that love them. The reason this so often comes up for Chicago is that its particular culture has historically been such a special one, attracting brainy hardworking types at the expensive of sporty fashionable types. “Where fun goes to die” and all that. The Common Core. The gritty city of Chicago. The respect for intellectual achievement above all else. Again, no one needs to believe this, but it is a powerful incentive to those who do believe it and want such a culture.
Agree 100%. SCEA/REA would enable students to signal U Chicago is their first choice while also allowing students to compare offers.
They could also keep ED and offer financial pre-reads to those applying ED.
But what makes it seem like they are trying to raise the yield and lower admissions is offering EA alongside ED1 and ED2 and then refusing to release stats.
In context, the statistics were being offered to show the percentage of applicants who locked themselves into admissions, which impacts the schools yield. In that context, there was no reason to exclude the QB admits. While it may be for different reasons than with some of the ED kids, Chicago is locking them in for its benefit, and they ought not be excluded from the statistics.
I’m not well-versed on SCEA, but it seems to me that it can’t very well signal first choice if it also “allows students to compare offers.” What’s the point of that unless there is freedom to take one of those other offers? And if there is, the preference it is said to be expressing is a very qualified one.
If, on the other hand, the point is to express your preference not in light of whatever other options you might have but in light of a full understanding of what level of FA you will have at the school you claim to prefer (information easily attainable) going ED is the way to do it.
The question of whether the ED system financially disadvantages anyone should be considered not by what is the best deal an applicant could obtain from among a group of colleges he or she has no real preference among but rather whether if that same applicant were to be accepted to his or her preferred college in a non-binding modality there would be a greater level of FA. That is highly unlikely to be the case from all I have heard about how the FA system works, at least at Chicago.
Don’t see how offering EA alongside ED adds anything to the supposed objective of raising yield. Surely it’s the contrary. But EA fits the objectives of certain kids, notably those who do in fact want to keep their options open, probably not so much for financial reasons as because they don’t have Chicago as their first choice. Chicago needs kids like that too.
SCEA or REA is used at a few highly selective colleges instead of ED. Examples:
- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech: no ED1 elsewhere, no EA at other private colleges.
- Georgetown, Notre Dame: no ED1 elsewhere.
Basically, the SCEA or REA applicant signals that there is no other college that is a first choice ED1 college. The exclusion of other private EA applications in the first group also signals that the applicant is not applying early to multiples of that group, and it is unlikely that the one chosen for SCEA or REA is not the first choice. But by making it non-binding, these colleges reduce the “what if FA is not good enough?” concern that inhibits some applicants from applying ED.
Good summary.
Adding that many seniors grow and mature a lot during senior year, and the school that may have seemed to be a first choice in the fall is sometimes not the first choice when May 1 rolls around. SCEA/REA can be a preferred option as compared to ED for these students too.
Also many HS students don’t have access to a knowledgeable GC who is helping them with college admissions…so no one to explain the differences/benefits/downsides to the various rounds of admissions, or to tell them about the existence of NPCs, etc. etc. etc.
True… and any early application type (ED, EA, or rolling) means that students who are not already on the college admissions express train by the beginning of 12th grade (i.e. having heard all about early applications, getting recommendations, starting essays, having done any needed SAT/ACT already, talking to parents about cost and financial aid, etc. before then) are at a disadvantage, since later (RD or later rolling) applicants may find many colleges (or desired majors) filled up from early applicants.
THAT!
(out of >1,700 students, if I remember correctly?)
Seems like all the subsequent “analysis” or “conclusions” are just as meaningful, or worth debating, as if noone had ever been polled?
(PS: just noticed UChicago banner ads all over the place on my screen - so kudo’s for actively marketing on CC).
I always say that I learn something new in the UChicago Forum. We could just say “reason for being” or “sole purpose,” but I enjoy looking things up. 
Thanks, @ucbalumnus .
As you describe it SCEA sounds like it would do the trick from my perspective. It does not truly mean that it “allows students to compare offers.” I agree that there might be a psychological assist to knowing that you could say no if you didn’t like the FA package. I doubt this often happens, however. Are there statistics to indicate how many kids accepted at these institutions actually do say no for that reason? My guess is, very few indeed. If that’s so, there’s not much of a practical distinction as between the two systems. And if, as I have heard repeatedly, Chicago and no doubt other ED schools provide a format so that FA can be accurately calculated up front before the application is made, then I have to wonder further whether this is a distinction without a true difference - at least, beyond the psychological.
@sushiritto , my old pal, the wit and wisdom of the Chicago board is an inexhaustible feast.
U Chicago is doing a great job at marketing on CC. Every U Chicago thread brings up an ad, which IMO is smart, if the goal is to increase apps. Which it is, fit be darned.
SCEA DOES allow the student to compare offers, because SCEA is NOT binding. Admitted students have until May 1 to make their enrollment decision.
Well, if that’s the case, @Mwfan1921 , it’s not demonstrating much of a preference, not one beyond not applying EA or ED to other schools. Still, I wonder how many accepted under SCEA decline ultimately.