@BrianBoiler Yes, applying ED certainly increases the chance of a relatively marginal applicant to be accepted, so ED attracts those applicants who need some extra “help” to get into UChicago (or other ED schools). But it obviously doesn’t increase the quality of the applicant pool. How could it?
@“Kathy V” ,
The amount of financial aid a university can provide is directly proportional to the size of its endowment. UChicago’s endowment is smaller than many of its target peers and therefore they have a smaller budget available for financial aid.
The move to ED1/ED2 was strategic in that it locked up talented students that are much more likely to be full pay than those that have to wait for RD to compare offers. It is by doing that they can afford to tout programs like “No barriers”, confident that not too many people will take full advantage of it.
@1NJParent, the evidence says it is. Every class that is accepted since the ED policy has been better than the previous class if you look at only the numbers. Nondorf spouts the following statement every year: “You are the best, most diverse, most achieving class UChicago has ever accepted.” If they were accepting a class heavy with ED kids who are marginal, would that be the case? Look at last year’s class acceptance thread for ED1 and ED2. I know it’s not scientific, but those kids who were accepted ED are anything but marginal.
Are we talking about financial aid or merit aid? Because as I was stating above
I would think that EDs would still get financial aid if not merit.
From the first google ranking of colleges by SAT data (2016 scores).
1> UChicago 1520 (I’m not sure the data is right, because the numbers referenced by admissions is lower)
2> MIT 1493
3> Harvard 1481
4> Princeton 1480
etc.
Hardly looks like a marginal class to me.
So the end justifies the means? Anyway, UChicago has become much more selective since its days of 30% admit rates. But if it wants to improve from its current position among other top colleges with single-digit admit rates, especially those with EA-only programs, it needs to attract a higher proportion of the very best applicants.
This ranking is clearly wrong. For example, Caltech has the highest SAT scores by far, for as long as I remember.
Source is USNWR iv’e seen others with Caltech on top, but it’s the range that is top not the average. Still on that ranking UChicago is still top 5, which is hardly marginal.
@BrianBoiler I’m not sure where USNWR got its SAT data, but it’s wrong. Caltech should have the highest SAT scores how ever they’re sliced and diced (mean, median, percentile, etc.)
BTW, I didn’t just say “marginal”. I said “relatively marginal”. ED schools (not just UChicago) attract a much larger proportion of the RELATIVELY marginal applicants.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I’m not sure what else is left to add, but since the discussion has devolved into debate, I am closing.