“You misunderstood my point. UChicago had loads of early applicants for a long time because it had, and still have, EA. What changed is it now also has ED. ED helps UChicago improve its YIELD significantly while keeping admit rate low with its EA program.”
“If UChicago had only one early program, whether EA or ED, its ranking would drop.”
If keeping only one early program leads to a rankings drop, then how come Columbia hasn’t introduced EA by now? Or are you suggesting that it’s UChicago’s particular placement at #3 (ahead of Stanford and Columbia, tied with Yale) that has to be maintained with the game of ED, because it shouldn’t be there otherwise?
The current 2018 rankings (released fall 2017) are, I believe, based on fall 2016 entering class data. That means that UChicago remained #3 based on its prior, one-early-program, admission plan. Wouldn’t we have seen a slip in the 2018 rankings if one early program was not sufficient to keep the ranking high?
Also, UChicago’s admit rate actually slipped to 8.7% when it introduced ED. Yes, the yield is higher but the admit rate is closer to 9% than 8%. Won’t that cause a slip in the 2019 rankings?
Early admission is great but admit rates are based on total numbers, not just early numbers. If UChicago is front-loading it’s admissions to early-only, then it’s admission rate will not improve and may even start to climb. What, then, will happen to rankings in your view?