Also, EDII isn’t deferred. EDII’s who weren’t accepted or rejected go to the waitlist.
I don’t think the EA yield will be that high this year because the ED folks have been removed from the pool. I think it will be closer to 45% like UPenn RD yield for example. In previous years it was much higher because there were a bunch of ED likely kids in the pool. That is not true this year.
Having said that, who knows
One thing for sure is that RD accept rate will be very low.
I wonder whether the exposure and media coverage that Chicago got for its “no trigger warnings/safe spaces” letter last year will impact the number of applications. Do you think it will be irrelevant or will it positively or negatively impact the number of applications?
It was a positive for my D. My guess it will be a net neutral but will tailor the class the way UChicago wants.
I am beginning to wonder if that letter was a well thought out strategy just ahead of announcing the switch to ED to bring in more applications from affluent families.
Drawing everyone’s attention to the other thread where there is again testimony on the numbers admitted in the early pool. The comparison with Harvard tells me that this does NOT include ED II (which has different timing), although it’s important to get that clarified. We’lll be attending a reception in April and hopefully Nondorf will be there quoting numbers for ED II 
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/20357232/#Comment_20357232
HAHA UChicago’s shameless tactics this year make me like the school even better! 
But I’m glad that they never compromised their dedication to intellectualism and quirky students.
^^It is so ‘in your face’ that it is rather amusing. Exposes the underbelly of the college admissions game, so to speak. I thought last year that Nondorf could not possibly outdo himself but he did. I’m curious to see what he comes up with for next year. One would think that he’d be about out of tricks up his sleeve…
@ihs76 What did he do last year?
all kids received the packet?
I didnt yet.
The combined early admits are waaaaay controversially high. It was controversial a few years back when Chicago gave out (slightly) more early acceptances than regular. I don’t think any comparable university had every done that. But at least those early admits were not ED/bound to enroll. This year, it looks like they have locked down 2/3rds of the class with ED, which in and of itself is unprecedented, plus they have a bunch of EA acceptances outstanding. It’s likely that they have 30,000 people in the RD pool to fill about 400 seats in the class, maybe 650 non-waitlist acceptances. That’s controversial.
In literally a couple of application seasons, Chicago has gone from being the most applicant-friendly of the elite universities to being the least applicant-friendly. Nondorf is doing what he was hired to do, no doubt, but he had already succeeded beyond any reasonable expectation, without compromising the university’s values. If Chicago hits Stanford- or Harvard-like admission rates with this strategy of high-stakes pressure on applicants, I am not going to cheer. It’s reprehensible, frankly.
I just want to know - where is the blowback? Maybe it’s still coming - once the press etc. absorbs what has been discussed on CC for several months now. But if UChicago has a history of controversial admissions moves . . . well, that’s kind of in keeping with the spirit of UChicago in general (don’t be afraid to think outside the box, challenge the conventional wisdom, and my very favorite from 30 some-odd years ago when my admission visit day happened to coincide with a brutal article about the curriculum: Don’t believe everything you read in the papers!).
The big question is whether UChicago is running renegade or setting a trend.
Agree that binding ED/EDII seems to be at least 2/3 of the freshman enrolled class (1200/1600 is actually 75%). The 9% admit rate coupled with the 13,000+ number posted here and elsewhere, assuming both are accurate, means that they admitted around 1,200 early (and then the word is 2/3 of those are ED, and 400 or so EA). @fbsdreams is hearing much nicer numbers that would spread the enrollments much more evenly among the four plans (ED/EA/EDII/RD). Without an expectation that EA and RD have very high yields (not clear at all - we don’t know who they are targeting in those pools nor which kids opted for non-binding vs. early binding), that even-handedness most likely wouldn’t produce as big a bump to the yield as such an aggressive admissions plan would seem to suggest for a goal. And then there is the FB page which @denydenzig and others have been monitoring.
Hopefully we’ll be able to figure it all out more definitively in a few months. Haven’t had this much fun since College Board screwed up the first revised PSAT! :))
I am also wondering if the administration is trying to change the political demographics of the entering class. I wonder if they are trying to attract a more politically “centrist” student body and see a large ED intake as the best way to do this. This would also set them in stark contrast to HYPS. By crowding out the majority of the EA/RD applicant pool, they may be eliminating the “most liberal” students. I think the ED pool is probably richer, whiter and more politically centrist than the EA/RD pool. There have been many clashes between the students, student government and the administration recently and the administration might be seeing ED as a way to manage the number of potential “trouble makers” matriculating. Even a 20% to 30% swing in student political demographics could make a huge difference on campus. The Admit rate and Yield rate changes may just be icing on the cake.
@denydenzig I don’t think it’s fair to equate “liberal” with “trouble makers”. Also not entirely accurate to equate free thought with centrism. The political leanings of students don’t necessarily correspond with their actions, and “trouble” comes from all sides of the political spectrum. I hope that the administration knows this.
With the emphasis on free thought and political diversity, I seriously doubt that the administration is trying to indirectly influence the student political demographic. If they are, though, that’s super shady.
If we approach this using Occam’s razor, I think UChicago attempting to reduce the number of liberals with their admissions strategy is out of the question. It’s just too far fetched to actually work or be considered.
Excluding liberals…that is a reach, usually it’s the obvious answer when trying to find why someone does something and in this case the obvious answer is to increase the yield.
Probably not an issue of reducing the number of “liberals”. Freedom of thought, after all, is a very liberal concept. Perhaps they believed it was time to give a public opinion on how they view their intellectual community. Let the chips fall where they may after that. Did they guess that it wouldn’t hurt admissions one bit? As we say in Minnesota, you betcha! 
I’d be surprised if the demographics overall shifted markedly this year from prior years - if anything UChicago seems to be more committed than ever to finding talented students of color and/or low income, etc. We are waiting to see if my daughter’s National Merit scholarship (assuming she’s granted one) is as generous as it has been in prior years. Looks like they might be transitioning out of using merit money to attract that group - and of course that money is going somewhere. Most likely to better attract students of extraordinary talent or a particular hook, etc.
I think UChicago is just admitting the obvious by segmenting its application pools the way they did. Despite the conventional wisdom that binding early admission takes advantage of students and families, many applicants at this elite level are, in fact, rational and informed agents who are making their choices accordingly. At the moment, it looks appalling to be so obvious - if other institutions follow suit, then it’ll become the new normal.
@springreturning I meant “trouble makers” from the administration’s perspective.
You are totally right in saying that trouble can come from all sides of the political spectrum, but I think it is fair to say that most of the opposition to administration actions, proposals and strategies right now is coming from the left leaning students at UChicago.
If you look at this survey of the incoming class of 2020
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2016/9/14/class-2020-survey/
you will notice that almost 75% of the students identified as very liberal or somewhat liberal, with only 9% identifying as conservative and 17% as moderate. With almost 25% of the students identifying as very liberal, UChicago has very little political diversity among its students right now.
As the survey shows, UChicago hardly has any “very conservative” students, so from a practical standpoint, most of the push back to administrative priorities is coming from the 25% or so “ultra liberal” students, because these students tend to disagree more vehemently with the administration on almost all issues. I have also heard that the Student Government at UChicago is also very left leaning.
Balancing out the student population with some more moderate and right leaning students I don’t think is necessarily a bad idea. It will add some balance and intellectual vitality to the campus without stifling any viewpoints, left or right.
Now it is difficult to identify the political leanings of students, but my guess is that there are more moderate students in the ED pool than in the RD pool on a percentage basis, so if you take more from that pool, you would land up skewing the demographics to the right.
@CU123 @ScrnNme Maybe you are right Maybe my imagination is running wild, but I can’t get this thought out of head that ZImmer, Nondorf and Boyer must be kind of miffed with all the “protests” against invited speakers and “Divestment” resolutions passed in the Student Government and supported by the Chicago Maroon.
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2016/04/15/college-council-passes-resolution-recommending-divestment/
It would make their life a lot easier if the student body was a little more friendlier