<p>I understand the anxiety some people here are experiencing but I think the indefinite decision release time is a win-win situation for both sides. I’d imagine that decisions are finalized on different days every year at most colleges and that many colleges do not release their decisions for a long (for people here) time after they have been made; Chicago doesn’t do this and notifies their applicants as soon as possible.<br>
They could have easily set their date on April 5th and appear “organized”.</p>
<p>^^ EXACTLY what I felt while reading this thread!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speculating as to when they will be out is actually quite useful and time-consuming (thereby keeping us ‘busy’). I say useful not because the speculation is itself useful but because if one does the practice correctly, it strengthen one’s rational capacities (to some extent) and allows one to test out his/her ability to accurately analyze data and make efficacious predictions from that data. Not only that, but the situation presented here is a rather curious one given that one must interpret qualitative and quantitative data in order to make an apt prediction. Of course, many may not be doing this but it is possible… As well, I fail to see how it ‘accomplishes nothing.’ If you want to define something that ‘accomplishes nothing’ as something that doesn’t have some sort of tangible end result then a lot of things ‘accomplish nothing.’ May we only do something that accomplishes something when we ‘keep busy?’ I want to go watch Superbad right now or perhaps watch Sportscenter at 6 P.M. but I fail to see how that can actually ‘accomplish’ something. All I can get out of doing those things would simply be a bit of pleasure, something that I may get out of speculating when decisions will be released (but apparently I shouldn’t do that). Or, perhaps, you’re attempting to assume that by speculating when decisions are out we believe that can have some sort of influence on when they will actually be released. Well, we don’t and I don’t see from where you could infer that we believe such ludicrous things. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice fallacious deductive reasoning you got going there. We don’t desire to be admitted to the admissions office; we desire to be admitted to the University of Chicago. I don’t see how one can dislike a university in virtue of its admissions process and priorities. I disagree with the emphasis that the University of Pittsburgh puts on GPA and SAT scores in its admissions process but that doesn’t mean that I hate the University of Pittsburgh. As well, while this does not wholly establish any sort of argument (or make any sort of point, I just wanna point out something intriguing), the fact that they are a private university does not put them above their obligation to perform moral duties. I don’t want to make this point too extensive but you seem to assuming that anything that has positive consequences is inherently right (in essence, a consequentialist view) yet, if one were to assume a deontological view, then the lying done by the admissions office could be inherently wrong (under Kant’s Categorical Imperative…but I don’t feel like delving into other forms of deontological ethics). Anyways, enough with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t a case of wanting or not wanting. They want to have some of the applicants that they reject, but they can’t take everyone they want due to the limited availability of space. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about you want UChicago to see your first semester grades? How about you want to work on the essays for a longer period of time? How about you have some big competitions in the fall that you may win? How about you barely knew much about the admissions process in general in October and wanted to wait a bit longer until you understood it more fully so that you wouldn’t make any idiotic mistakes? How about you didn’t know about UChicago until late October/early November-December? How about it wasn’t originally your first choice but things changed? How about you had fall sports/fall play that took up most of your time (this complements the second sentence here, by the way)? Apparently there are no legitimate excuses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s funny. Maybe if they didn’t tell everybody, flat out, that there was no advantage between applying EA or RD. The admissions rep that came to our school flat out said that there was no advantage to applying EA. On top of that, she told us how she wanted to leave as soon as she possibly could so that she could catch her flight and then proceeded to give a horrific presentation where she basically told us nothing and then, when we asked her questions, she couldn’t answer any questions we asked her. So not only do they supposedly compulsively lie but they also are vastly unprofessional. By the way, the admissions office didn’t make the University of Chicago what it is - the faculty and the administration there made it what it is…just to let you know. And, by the way, I am by no way making any statements about my subjective feelings towards the admissions office, simply relaying the empirical facts that I have induced over the past year.</p>
<p>And, if I get what you’re saying, the admissions office can do whatever it wants because it’s a private school. They can represent their school as badly as they want and they can treat applicants as poorly as they like but it doesn’t matter! They’re a private institution after all!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No that isn’t necessarily so. Any person’s application that gets accepted to a university deserved to be admitted. Don’t be assuming that an application can wholly reflect how a person is because even admissions officers from the University of Chicago will tell you that that isn’t wholly true. As well, the admissions officers don’t know if a student can succeed; they can only use the information they’re given and if, given that information, they believe that a student can succeed then that is only true if two things are true: </p>
<p>1) That the information about a student’s academics are legitimate representations of their aptitude (some student at my HS that cheated his way through HS went to CMU because he got good grades and now he’s almost failing out).
2) That the student will continue with the same work ethic, the same general behavior (bad wording, I know, but, basically, that the student will not engage in behaviors that are detrimental to his/her physical and mental well-being) and will maintain the same level of aptitude. </p>
<p>Of course, the admissions officers can’t know that much about a student and hence cannot make a wholly apt prediction. As well, you’re assuming that the currently-used process by which the admissions officers select who is admitted is the ideal way to go about the process for said institution which isn’t necessarily true (also, see the first sentence of my response to this part of your statement).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They could have said that that was a possibility instead of just saying flat-out that there is no difference between EA and RD. Anyways, I fail to see how srrinath wasn’t accepted EA yet some absolute morons on this site were (not you, neogop, by the way - I can understand why they would admit you). Fortunately, they don’t post on the UChicago forums anymore and simply make their unintelligent and racist remarks on other forums.</p>
<p>Dang this is a long post!</p>
<p>And, let’s continue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Morale of the story? UChicago needs to get better servers :).</p>
<p>Anyways, if they post that decisions aren’t going to be released ‘today’ on their blog posts then wouldn’t that actually increase the phone calls since people will be wondering when the decisions are? If you know that a decision is coming at 5 P.M. today and that there is absolutely nothing you can do to change your decision, why are you going to call the admissions office? To talk to Crystal about her favorite color?</p>
<p>Anyways, once people start to pick up that they constantly lie about when decisions are going to be released, who is going to actually take them seriously when they say that decisions aren’t going to be release on whatever day it is. Heck, given how (almost) every time they’ve said that decisions aren’t going to be released on a given day, they’ve been released on that given day, wouldn’t that actually cause some people (those who knew of this fact) to do exactly what you said they would do if admissions posted that decisions would be up at 5? Of course, it would be necessary to factor in those ignorant of this trend into the equation but yea…their deceptive strategy can only produce benefits for so long.</p>
<p>Also, they don’t upload decisions the day they release them. They upload the majority of the decisions a few days earlier and then upload the last few close to the end. Of course, I’m not completely certain that that’s correct but given that there is probably an inverse correlation between the business of the servers and the number of days left before decisions are supposed to be ‘out’ (Dec. 15th for EA and April 1st for RD), it would be easiest to do it that way. And, UChicago accounts were down on like 12/10 midday (a school day) or something like that for EA, a time when the server probably was not that active with prospective students. So…yea…by the way, you said you put money on it…but never said how much ;)!</p>
<p>To begin,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How does one properly carry out the process of making an apt prediction? As far as I know, there is little qualitative or quantitative data to analyze in making such a prediction. If there is little analysis beyond, “What time are they releasing, I’m so nervous!” then I fail to see how this is strengthening ones logical capacities. If I am wrong, please show me how.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please explicate your argument that the University of Chicago is obligated to perform morally. You seem to be implying that they are undertaking immoral activities; otherwise, what is your basis for making such a statement? </p>
<p>In addition, please explain your accusation against the admissions office. I have yet to see evidence that 1) there has been any lie committed, and 2) that such a lie was communicated with an intent to deceive. You are assuming a consequentialist perspective when you state that a lie is inherently wrong without considering the motivating factor, if any, behind the lie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was she lying? Perhaps at that point, there was no advantage. Previous years had shown no advantage. Did she know that the numbers would be skewed as they were?</p>
<p>How was the presentation horrific? You say you are not alleging a subjective account, but this is certainly not objective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most of these ‘legitimate excuses’ are ideas that are inconsequential to admission to the university. If you apply early action and are admitted, why do you want UChicago to see your first semester grades or competitions you may win? If you are deferred, then they will see these things. I was one of those who 1) didn’t know much about the university, and 2) didn’t know you could apply early decision AND early action. I later found out this was possible, but I would certainly not use these as excuses. They are reasons, and they are my fault, not the university’s. It turns out this year there is a large disparity between early action and regular decision, my fault, not the university’s. </p>
<p>If you would argue that it is not my fault and it is instead the university’s, please do. Such an argument would be interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is their prerogative, yes. If they continue to portray themselves poorly, as you allege, then they will gradually lose their reputation as an elite university. This is a logical transition, is it not? </p>
<p>Again, I am interested to see you explicate your argument that the university is obligated to perform moral duties. Is it obligated? Why is it obligated? If you can prove it is obligated, then is it not meeting this obligation? In what way is it failing to meet this obligation that you would argue this point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, were they aware there was a difference when they made such a statement? </p>
<p>This paragraph seems quite venomous and unbecoming of your personality. If you wish to carry on an intellectual discussion, please refrain from such remarks.</p>
<p>Hedy Motion…I would argue the admissions department has alot to do with the way the University is…you said it was the administrators and professors…don’t forget, a university wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the students…who do you think decides who will interact with administration and the professors…I would say admissions has ALOT to do with the type of university UC is…wouldn’t you?</p>
<p>Wow… crazyday, well played, my friend. </p>
<p>But motion, I’ll keep my retort sweet and short (rhyme!). </p>
<p>As for the usefulness of speculating the release date: I think you fail to see one of the defining points of something’s use. When something is useful, it accomplishes a task whose completion was intended. Many CC’ers like to claim, “I think they’ll release on [insert month], [insert date] at [insert time].” Their goal, or rather I should say task, is to identify ahead of time when those decisions will be released. However, odds are that they will not correctly identify those moments in time. Regardless of if they do identify those moments correctly, they still have not really accomplished anything of use, since those moments are 100% out of their control. Therefore, speculating the time has no obtainable goal, and is thus futile. </p>
<p>By virtue of not liking the admissions office, you are, in a roundabout way, not liking the university. The admissions officers are hired by Dean Nondorf (or O’Neill for most). Dean Nondorf was hired by President Zimmer, whom was hired by the Board, who controls the university. The Board also hires the deans, who hire the professors, who teach (in most cases) the students and conduct research. As well, said admissions officers admit (funny how that works out…) the undergraduate students! I would argue that the professors (hired by the deans, hired by the board and Zimmer) and the students (selected by the admissions officers, hired by Nondorf, hired by Zimmer, hired by the board) make up UChicago’s intellectual community and give it it’s distinct identity. So, in summary, I think that admissions department does in fact reflect much of the university’s academic and social atomosphere, as proven by both induction (admissions officers –> board) and deduction (admissions officers –> students, board –> professors). And most of your response I did not really understand, I must say, since I haven’t read any Immanuel Kant. Though I look forward to reading a lot of his works at UChicago, if I can attend. </p>
<p>Do they want us? Maybe, maybe not. I probably should have use the word “many” instead of “most.” Nevertheless, you neglected to notice my litotes. Just because they “don’t want” just means that they’re essentially neutral. It’s like the difference between “not liking” a food, versus “disliking” a food. I regretfully apologize that the English language is severely incapable of expressing such important and nuanced ideas, revealing its inferiority to Latin. </p>
<p>As for all of the excuses you proposed. All of them have the blame fall on the student, though somewhat cruelly, except for not knowing about UChicago. I guess there is some chance that, given you are applying to elite, selective colleges, that you did not come across Chicago, though some of that blame falls not on the University but on luck/chance/fate. Also remember Chicago’s blitzkrieg on our mailboxes last year? I find it hard to believe that many of the RD applicants hadn’t heard of Chicago until after the EA deadline, but I guess it’s possible. </p>
<p>I understand your points on the next topic, and yes there are many who slip through the college admissions process by cheating their way to a good GPA, hiring SAT/ACT tutors who practically cheat for them, or having parents/counselors write essays for them. But you’re failing to realize that a high number of UChicago fourth years graduate with honors (GPA > 3.25). Granted, they could cheat their way through, but I’d hope that most of them have the dignity not to. I could be wrong, but many many many UChicago students are successful, and I think it’s a fallacy to say that the admissions department is bad at picking people who will use their university to the fullest, contribute the most, and be the most successful. Yes, when you’re selecting 3,200 out of 19,000 there are bound to be some kids you shouldn’t have admitted and some kids you should’ve admitted. The process is not perfect, nor did I say it was. Nothing is perfect. Not even me… just kidding. :P</p>
<p>As for them lying to you. I can’t really apologize because I wasn’t the one lying to you. If it was me, I certainly wouldn’t have said such things. If I was running the admissions office, I probably wouldn’t operate it how they do. However, all I’m saying is that I understand and can speculate some logical reasons for their actions. If you choose to think them illogical and deceptive, be my guest. The fact of the matter is, that is how things are, and we all have to deal with them. Plain and simple. Whether it is the best way or not is simply opinion. If you choose to critique them, go ahead. Maybe they’ll change their ways for next year. But in the here and now, that is how the operate and that is how it will be. It is not necessarily fair, but life is not fair. If life were fair, Snape wouldn’t have died and we wouldn’t have progressive, bracketed federal taxes (but fair is an opinion, I guess). </p>
<p>Wow, this is a little long. My b. My b. Also, good luck with your pending decision. I know the rest of us would be lucky to have you in the Class of 2014.</p>
<p>Someone read my post. I’m honored.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is actually a lot of data that can be analyzed in making such predictions; most of it is simply not compiled and analyzed by the majority of applicants (or any, really). We did some substantive predictive analysis before EA decisions, basing our predictions on the increased number of applications, the closing time of the UChicago office (and surmising potential reasons for the closure), the change on the speed of the admissions process the new dean of admissions would have, etc. Of course, we didn’t analyze the process to the extent that we could have. Just to use this current admissions process as an example, the factors that could be used in a predictive analysis could be the following: Given the purpose for bringing in the new dean of admissions (increased # of apps, higher yield) and given the acts of the admissions office to reaffirm that they are attempting to do this (likely letters, EA scholarships, higher number of EA admits who historically have a higher yield), one can deduce that admissions decisions will be sent as soon as possible for the purpose of giving the admissions office the longest possible amount of time to convince admits to go to the University of Chicago. Of course, this doesn’t tell us much at first glance. Add some additional factors into the scenario and it is a tad more enlightening. Consider the dates of release relative to the number of applicants in previous years and find how much sooner (or later) decisions were released at institutions that Nondorf used to be the dean of admissions at (not so much at Yale due to the whole Ivy League decision date thing) relative to when they used to be released and when they are currently released (and all this relative to the number of applicants and size of the admissions of staff). On top of this, account for the increased speed of technologies and the increasing number of people who submitted their application online which would be accounted for by the fact that there is less time spent compiling files (this, not so much), less time attempting to decipher some essays/recs with substandard handwriting, and quicker upload times (as well as quicker contacting of admissions officers by other admissions officers when they are out of office). And, in addition to all this, take into account the size of the admissions office (in terms of employees staffed, the number of years that certain admissions officers have worked there (one ought to be careful with this variable though because it does not necessarily lead to any increased productivity), and, if possible, number of hours that they work - not possible to get but w/e) and analyze the marginal benefit (in terms of time, if that makes sense) of each additional employee in the admissions office. Then, look at how other institutions with comparable admissions processes (and application totals) have reacted after a substantial increase in applicants (in terms of admissions dates). On top of that, look at the scheduled dates of the ‘Spring Open House’ and other prospective/admitted student events relative to previous years (and, have this compared to the number of applicants, time of admissions decision, etc.). While I do not wish to compile all the data at the current time (or even give a shot at attempting to provide a method for compiling it and coming up with a predictive analysis after it has been compiled through method), I’m sure an apt model would be enlightening (of course, this might seem to slightly defeat my point but my point was not to create such a model - but rather to simply say that the compilation of one is possible and that by compiling one, or even by attempting to compile potential data points for one, one can strengthen one’s logical capacities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never explicitly made an argument that the University of Chicago is obligated to perform morally. I never made any argument that mandated that anyone perform morally, either. I simply said that I thought it was intriguing point and, since I was anyways basing what I was saying off Kant’s moral philosophy, the University of Chicago (the people within it, not the institution itself) are morally obligated not to lie because it is a perfect duty one has in light of one being rational (Kant’s first formulation of the CI).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no need to repeat what has already been said in this thread and in other threads. I was generally talking about the University of Chicago admissions office intentionally deceiving people about the release of decisions and the inability to admit that it made a technical mistake and released most deferrals around the same time for the EA decisions (supposedly it was by “time zone” even though this has clearly been proved false in light of empirical evidence). In fact, neogop attempted to claim that the admissions office had a rational reason behind such deceiving remarks so, if his claims are true, then the admissions office intentionally deceived the applicants to the University (or, one can look at UChicagoPSAC’s comments in this thread - they clearly tell lies with the intent of deceiving applicants for some sort of end)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, a consequentialist perspective would look solely at the consequences. I’m assuming a somewhat deontological perspective in saying that a lie is wrong no matter the intentions or consequences (think Kant and lying to the murderer - or just google it if you don’t know it).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No she didn’t know that and no she was not lying but instead of flat-out saying that she ought to say that in previous years that has been the case though it might not be so this year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may seem as though I’m giving my subjective opinion on the matter here but I am not. The statement is wholly objective. An admissions representative qua admissions representative is meant to represent his/her university in an admissions session about the university that s/he represents. The purpose of an admissions session is to relay information about said university to prospective students. She told us nearly nothing about the university and could not answer any of the questions about the university that we asked her. Every student that I talked to left the admissions session with a bad taste about Chicago. Now, you say, that must be subjective, but it isn’t. Unless there were flaws in my gather empirical data, then if the purpose of an admissions session is to “sell” the university to prospective students and the admissions representative inadequately presents the university to the extent that all students at the meeting dislike the university in virtue of the bad representative then, if you define a horrific presentation as one that does not accomplish its intended goals, then her presentation was horrific. Now, this might still seem a bit subjective (you could argue that the presentation was only ‘horrific’ because of the people listening to it, not wholly because of the presentation itself). However, that’s all I’ll say about that for now. I would also just like to note that she stumbled throughout her presentation and did not seem to convey much information (in fact, she basically implied that she didn’t care about us when she told us that she wanted to leave as fast as possible - something that is antithetical to the original purpose of having the presentation). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe you misunderstood me. I was attempting to say that there are legitimate excuses to not applying EA and applying RD (given that one believes that there is no difference in one’s chances between EA and RD). Re-read what I wrote and further comment if you still have issues with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that such an argument would be intriguing. While I have an argument in mind, I will not go in-depth with it. Rather, I will simply say that some of those things one needs to do in virtue of the admissions process that is set up and, given one’s end of gaining admittance to the university, therefore it is, to some extent, the university’s fault.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and that would be contradictory to the aims of the current dean of admissions (which is to portray themselves positively and expand their public recognition). Therefore, if they truly value the goals of the new dean of admissions, they cannot treat their applicants as poorly as they currently do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but they ought to have acknowledged it as a possibility (as stated earlier).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is, partially. The unintelligent remark was, but the remark about the apparent racism and irrationality is backed by observed evidence. However, I probably shouldn’t have said that.</p>
<p>Isn’t this a good time waster? I’ll attempt to negate your points tomorrow, neogop…I’ve had enough for one day lol. By the way, you guys made some nice points.</p>
<p>^^^To think you said your retort would be ‘sweet and short’. </p>
<p>Most of the above argument was a little convoluted but entertaining nonetheless. </p>
<p>(1) people who speculate don’t do it for logical reasons. they do it because they’re anxious or at the least, curious. arguing about the validity of speculation is a little like trying to reason with a recently-dumped friend about the ‘efficiency of singlehood’. don’t mix emotion and logic. live and let live.</p>
<p>(2) the isolated behavior of the admissions office is not reflective of the university at large. i can’t begrudge chicago because my regional consellor told me a white lie (probably with the intent of calming my nerves).</p>
<p>(3) motion, the servers at chicago have traffic spikes on 2 days out of 365. getting ‘better servers’ isn’t really a wise idea.</p>
<p>(4)neogop, precisely because the admissions process isn’t perfect, “the admissions department is bad at picking people who will use their university to the fullest, contribute the most, and be the most successful”. a better response (instead of calling it a fallacy) would be to point out that such superlatives have no meaning without knowing how next four years will pan out. because we human beings are not oracles, being ‘bad’ at predicting any of those things is only natural. what admissions officers bring to the table is the experience needed to make educated guesses which the larger university community must trust. </p>
<p>(5) no one is to blame for the imperfections of the admissions process and short of invading an applicant’s life with hidden cameras, nothing will reveal his or her true colors. as an international applicant familiar with the admissions processes of at least five countries, i can tell you that in america, colleges make a great deal of effort to ensure (through a comprehensive and progressive admissions process) that they’re picking the right people. ‘perfecting’ the admissions process any further will produce diminishing returns. </p>
<p>(6) there’s no explicit advantage in applying EA. that said, many EA applicants demonstrate a high level of interest in chicago and their ability to turn in their application so early in the admissions season is often correlated with an underlying diligence and motivation, both traits that colleges look out for in students. but as admissions officers (at chicago and many other schools) will tell you, an applicant who’s been admitted early should be admitted RD as well. if you have any friends at chicago, try asking them if they can tell apart the EA kids from the RD ones (other than from snell-hitchcock residency).</p>
<p>I’ll try to answer some of your points quickly srrinath.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. I know I wrote a lot up there so you probably missed this line. I said, "Of course, many may not be doing this but it is possible… " I guess what I was attempting to say that the speculation can have some sort of benefit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe I stated that I agreed with that in response to one of neogop’s points (I’ll just assume that was a response to neogop then I guess).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was intended to be a joke…obviously it was a bad one lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that colleges in America make stronger efforts to ensure that they’re picking the right people than colleges in other countries but that doesn’t mean that the process can’t be improved. I don’t feel like going into depth about how the admissions process can be changed but just think for a second what the purpose of having a GPA and a class rank is. I, personally, see no purpose in a strict ranking system as it is unclear what exactly the ranking is itself supposed to mean. As well, since many teachers grade differently throughout the country (and the world) and each teacher puts different weights on different aspects of a course, it is hard to tell what exactly a grade in a class is supposed to represent. While not being an example to my previous statement, imagine that a student in economics fails a test on the political system in the United Kingdom. Assume that said student fails the test and gets mostly A’s on the rest of his tests in the class yet still ends up with a B. What does the B represent? Does it represent a general ineptitude of the subject on his part or does it represent his ineptitude of the political system in the United Kingdom? Further, what if, after failing the test, the student does in fact learn about the political system in the UK (but the teacher won’t let him take the test again and he remains with a B in the class)? Is the B truly indicative of much? I wouldn’t think so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There was no difference in EA and RD admit rates until this year (this year, there will be - 28% for EA and 12% for RD). Given that we don’t have any clue how competitive the RD applicant pool is, we can’t really say much about there being an advantage or not this year. If the pool is as competitive and qualified as the EA pool, then it’s a lot more competitive. Anyways, in response to your other comments, I fail to see how you can ‘spot’ EA kids from RD kids…as though one were different than the other. And, a student admitted EA is a student that the admissions committee would accept regardless of the the applicant pool in RD so your statement about that is correct.</p>
<p>Wow.
You guys must be really stressing out. :P</p>
<p>Word. This is ridiculous. Chill.</p>
<p>^^parliaments are my favorite cigarettes</p>
<p>mine is Marlboro red.</p>
<p>@motion</p>
<p>Are you a debater?</p>
<p>I could look up your status, but that would take too long - must run.</p>
<p>^^ Second above question. Ld debate I would assume. The whole deontology vs consequentialism argument comes up unreasonably often.</p>
<p>In any case, oddly enough it is such arguments as the one on this thread ( as superfluous as it may be) that make me want to go to Chicago. Intelligent, passionate, and pointless debate <3.</p>
<p>^Pointless? In this case, maybe, but I’m sure many of the conversations you’ll participate in at Chicago (or at any other peer college, for that matter) will be far from pointless.</p>
<p>It seems as if many of you guys are trying to reduce stress by participating in hot debates? I bet UChicago will like that.</p>
<p>@neogop. My comments wont have the depth of other posters and might deviate from the intent of this thread but Ill respond to yours directed at me.</p>
<p>First, I merely responded to your point about trusting the Dean. I stated my own reasons and feeling about why I dont, and that was and is what I feel. Second, I apply to Chicago based on what I like about the school from reading and hearing, and after evaluating my chance of acceptance against the published stats and other info including past acceptance rates. I looked at the acceptance gap between EA and RD in the past and made a decision to forego EA for RD with the hope of presenting my best application as suggested by the U, with the past gap figures in mind. The huge gap of EA acceptance this yr in absolute numbers was a shock to me. Yes, I feel frustrated because the new admin is not above board on this new strategy. Of course I wont know about the motive, nor do you.</p>
<p>About I should have had applied EA if Chicago had been my first choice. I can tell straight to your face that Chicago was and is my first choice, despite my discontent about the deadline. I will even tell you that it has been my wish since sophomore yr and thats why I was so proud of getting the emails. I did not apply EA or ED anywhere. I even spent most of my application time working on the Chicago prompts while giving minimals to others because I enjoyed writing them, so the love letter was another shock. I can also tell you that I will not want to attend a university if I am not wanted.</p>
<p>ED is about total commitment, EA is generally more about timing and higher interest. Therefore, I expressed the opinion that a surprised huge gap of advantage for EA is not justified on fairness. Understandably, we all know that many applicants used EA(s) to pair with another ED during the early cycle, which one is the first choice? If one suggests that applying EA means the unequivocal passion and love of Chicago, why would so many Chicago EA admits on CC (no offense) are also applying RD elsewhere? For example, why did you apply to several schools EA, and is now waiting for some RD decisions after already early admitted to Chicago, your FIRST choice.</p>
<p>On a separate note, I totally agree with another poster who commented on the extraordinary efforts of ChicagoPSAC here, as well as on her own thread.</p>