<p>How many "qualified applicants" do you think apply to uChicago? How many do you think stand no chance? Obviously there is no correct answer, but I am just curious to what your perspectives are. Please don't answer if you are going to criticize me for asking this question.</p>
<p>Completely different question, but does EA hold any advantage to RD? I doubt it does because there is no binding commitment, but I am not the most informed applicant. Haha</p>
<p>It used to be that being willing to apply to Chicago pretty much meant you were qualified. That was the notion behind the “self-selected” nature of the applicant pool. Anyone who was attracted to a place with a reputation as being no-fun, hyperintellectual, rigorous, and grade-deflated was probably the kind of person who could handle it. In recent years, Chicago has shaken off some of the unjustified parts of that reputation, so it is no longer the case that every applicant is necessarily a “Chicago” kind of person. Still, I don’t think Chicago gets anywhere near as many “for the hell of it” applications as Harvard and Yale, etc. By and large, students apply to Chicago because they want academic quality, not prestige.</p>
<p>Also, historically, Chicago wasn’t in a position to insist on “perfect” applicants, like Harvard/Yale etc. It took many smart, intellectual kids with flaws in their resumes. I think that’s still the case, but to a much lesser extent, because Chicago is getting so many more applications. It almost HAS to be pickier about the students it accepts – how else do you sort through 20,000 applications? But this application surge is still new enough that no one – not even Chicago’s admissions staff, probably – really knows what the new baseline looks like.</p>
<p>All of which is a long way of saying that I doubt there are many unqualified applicants in the pool. Kids don’t like to get rejected, and there’s no particular reason for kids who aren’t strong academically to lob an application in to Chicago to see what happens. I would guess a large majority of the kids applying this year are people who would have been strong candidates for admission five or six years ago.</p>
<p>
I agree with that point (and most of the rest of your response), but would these candidates still be considered enough for today’s pool? I am just playing devil’s advocate because I know that Uchicago wasn’t as competitive as it is now.</p>
<p>^ My guess would be on the whole yes. Even after accounting for academic inflation (more 2400’s, more 4.0 more people pursuing underwater basket weaving for colleges), most of those will be offered admission. </p>
<p>There are more applications but there are still a comparatively similar amount of potential college students and so more people will be offered admission to account for yield.</p>
<p>There are more applications but more admittances. It depends on how much one has increased compared to the other.</p>
<p>^Huh? That is maybe true in a macro sense. But at particular colleges, yield tends to change very slowly, if at all. At Chicago, during the period in which applications have been doubling and the admit rate has been cut in half, yield has fluctuated in a band not much wider than 3%, between 36% and 39%+. As a result, Chicago accepts pretty much the same number of people year to year. It has been as low as 3,600 and as high as 3,750, but that’s pretty much it for variation. They are not admitting more people on account of the greater number of applications.</p>
<p>Has the size of the waiting list changed a lot over these last few years?</p>
<p>try looking up some UChicago applicant threads to see the qualification diversity of the applicants and the amount of people who got in EA</p>
<p>From the EA threads, I have concluded that less qualified EA students are admitted than the RD round. I saw a few 1600’s get rejected, not even wait listed during RD.
If any juniors are looking at this thread apply EA.</p>
<p>It’s important to avoid making assumptions about the admissions process after reading College Confidential. This is hardly a representative group of the UChicago applicant pool. This is based purely on anecdotal evidence and things I’ve heard in info sessions, but compared to peer institutions, the University of Chicago’s EA admission rate holds little to no advantage over the regular decision rate. The reason I’ve heard given for this anomaly is that students applying in the early action cycle are more invested–they know they like the University of Chicago, and because of this, have better essays, Why Chicago statements, etc. And more specifically on your observation, considering the University of Chicago’s holistic admissions process, it’s not too surprising that 1600’s get rejected; it happens during EA as well as RD, I assure you. </p>
<p>As for your original question. A lot of people are afraid the self-selection that’s kept the school going for so many years died with the uncommon app, but I don’t believe it. They still call us “where fun goes to die”. I’m not worried. </p>
<p>And ditto JHS on the “for the hell of it” application point.</p>
<p>^^good points, I concur.</p>