<p>4-something % of the total pool EA, and another 4-something % of the total pool RD, is completely credible, and probably what happened. That would equate to an admit rate of ~9%, not ~4%.</p>
<p>One of my friends who was accepted early and attended the reception center said that one of the admissions officers said that the regular admission rate would be about only 4%, due to the large number of students accepted early and a sizeable percentage of them already committing. Thus, I believe only 650 students out of 16,000 regulars were admitted.</p>
<p>Early admission rate was about 13% and regular about 4%</p>
<p>^Let’s take that as a fact to look at the numbers again. 13% early admission rate would translate to 1,448 admitted students although I was under the impression that it was around 12% ~1,350. If merely 650 were admitted in the regular round, 1448 plus 650 would only give you 2,098 total admits, which means the total acceptance rate would be 7.6% (2,098/27,499). The implication of yield is an astounding rate of 67%, (1400/2098). </p>
<p>Realistically, I believe Jeremy Manier’s early comment is more sensible that the total acceptance rate should be around the same as last year, 8.8%.</p>
<p>I agree with 8 to 9 % acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Although the 4% acceptance rate for the <em>regular</em> round is plausible, it is an ambitious move. By doing so, the adcom office is simply sending a signal to all the future qualified students that if you want to get accepted to Chicago, you’d better apply early. </p>
<p>The 4% admit rate on the RD pool would apply not just to the people who applied RD (~16,300), but to those people plus the EA applicants who were deferred (number unknown, but unlikely to be much less than 6,000). 4% of 22,000+ would be around 900 RD acceptances, or 2,350 total, which equates to an 8.5% acceptance rate and a 59% projected yield, with (as everyone has noticed) a hefty waiting list in the event that yield proves over-optimistic.</p>
<p>JHS, now it’s starting to make sense when including the EA deferred numbers. Thanks for your better perspective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry to state the obvious but that is neither credible nor does it represent --at least accurately-- how schools report the admissions rates. While one might present the percentage of students admitted in the EA round as a percent of the admitted class, it makes no sense to calculate that rate versus the total applications’ pool. In terms of the EA applications, the 4 percent is simply a fictitious number that means … nothing! </p>
<p>Then, an admission rate of 4 percent in the EA round is completely farfetched, even in the “fans-tasy” world of Chicago. Secondly, schools do not report the admission rates in the RD by counting the deferred applications again. Schools report --at least the schools that believe in reporting such information on a timely basis-- the admission rates for the early pool and then report the total admissions from the total pool of applicants. The creative reporting is fortunately only in vogue at a number of schools. And adding the deferred applications to announce a lower RD admission rate is pure marketing gimmick. Stanford and Harvard do not use such crutches. And neither should Chicago. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that Chicago’s numbers are probably inline with most of its direct competitors with a double digit EA admission rate and a single digit admission rate in the RD round. The combination of the two after the summer melt with be in the 9 to 10 percent neighborhood. And, there is hope that this number will ultimately be confirmed in October when Chicago releases its … CDS form. Yeah, hope is the correct term here! </p>
<p>^ Fwiw, compare the announcements of Chicago to MIT’s. After all, how hard is it to announce that 1419 students were admitted from 18,357 applications and that there were 6,820 EA applicants from which 612 were admitted. From there it is easy to compute a 9 percent EA admit rate and a 7.7 total admit rate. </p>
<p>Not sure that it’s fair to criticize the U of C regarding the 4 percent number since that value, to my knowledge, is based only on a hearsay report, and not the University’s official statement. While it’s at least interesting to see that MIT posted final numbers, while Chicago has not, one can reasonably expect that Chicago’s overall admit rate will be consistent with that for the Class of 2017. One might also reasonably infer that Chicago’s admissions office had a particularly difficult task this year. There’s a bit of conflicting information–Chicago’s yield curve has had a positive slope, while applications for the Class of 2018 went down by nearly 10 percent. Additionally, the school probably is up against its bed limit, because the College’s optimal size is probably around 5,400, while over 3,000 students entered just in the Classes of 2016 and 2017: <a href=“Laureate discusses themes in contemporary poetry – Chicago Maroon”>Laureate discusses themes in contemporary poetry – Chicago Maroon. A reasonable admissions approach would be to target the nominal class size (1,350) and estimate that yield will be a bit better–having a few students under the nominal value would not be a bad thing to help manage the College’s overall size. For a 1,350-person class and a 60-percent yield estimate, 2,250 students would be admitted, for an overall admissions rate somewhere in the low 8s. Another reasonable choice would be to have a big wait list. Rather than self-admiration, a higher yield estimate reduces risk–the one thing that can’t happen is that the available beds get over-subscribed. So, on the one hand, the Class of 2018’s admissions rate had to be low enough to not overtax the physical plant’s resources, and on the other, the wait list has to be big enough to create a pool of worthy candidates to fill the spaces that may free up due to the conservative (from the space perspective) or the optimistic (admitted students love the College), but entirely rational higher yield projection. A high wait-list volume would also offset the risk of the yield actually being lower (i.e. the lower application numbers were a bellwether that the current wave of popularity had reached a peak).</p>
<p>Yes. The physical plant constraint is a big concern. Chicago can only hold up to ~2900 students - fewer than the total of first years and second years.</p>
<p>Traditionally some/many second years start living off-campus. According to some sources I have noticed there is a trend that more second years are living on-campus and a quite few third years too. Has anyone noticed it too? </p>
<p>Since Pierce building is now closed the college has more physical plant issues. Last year they had assigned some first years to triples and dedicated New Grad and I-House to undergraduates only. Unless there are some backup plans one of the worst actions is to over-enroll, again.</p>
<p>Ideally they should shoot for a yield of 55%-60% and admit a dozen off the wait list this year.</p>
<p>Well I emailed and asked so I will let you know what they say! Probably won’t give me anything interesting but it was worth a shot…</p>
<p>Do not give up. Here’s a recent article:
<a href=“http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/02/18/college-admissions-more-selective-in-88/”>Architect Viñoly’s new GSB designed with eye to detail – Chicago Maroon;
<p>If the history repeats itself, you might see a comprehensive release of information about the Class of 2018 a few years before … 2050. 
Sarcasm set aside, statistics that will contain a modicum of truth should be available next fall via USNews, Peterson’s, et al, and in the government mandatory statistics. From Chicago’s offices? Yeah, keep on dreaming! </p>
<p>“Hovering just under 9%” was their answer. … </p>
<p>The above number is totally in line with reasonable expectations, albeit not with the crazy expectations on this forum in the Fall. With the expected summer melt and waitlist admits, the final number will be in the 9 to 10 percent range and confirms Chicago’s position among the most selective schools in the country. </p>
<p>All of that, however, does not explain or justify the deliberate refusal to share the most basic admissions’ numbers on a timely basis. Most “explanations” are to any objective readers pure and simple hogwash, including the line about only disclosing data after all applicants have been informed. Pure BS! Again, watch the action around April 1st and witness how many schools understand what the function of a press release really is. </p>
<p>I went to a reception for admitted students in my area today, and the admissions rep told us that the acceptance rate was 8.3% this year.</p>
<p>That would mean the total admitted students are 2,282 with approximately 900 admitted from the RD. With, say, 60% yield, UChicago is expecting the incoming first years of only 1,369 for the Class of 2018.
If the yield turns out to be much higher than that, the administration will need to find a way to deal with over enrollment three years in a row. </p>
<p>So you are saying, they did not take anyone from wait list since last 2 year’s ?</p>
<p>My fairly reliable source told me that the EA rate was about 9% and RD rate was about 4%. </p>