<p>I found the following quote from Ted O’Neill, the Director of Admissions, interesting:</p>
<p>“We like the feel of our open EA plan, even when we get burned. We wish students would not apply EA to us and ED elsewhere, which, while not in violation of any of our rules, seems to violate the unspoken rule that we will treat each other with proper respect. If we struggle to make admissions decisions, and base our decisions on the assumption that any EA applicant thinks of Chicago as a top choice and will be free to make that choice, and then learn that the student has in effect committed himself or herself elsewhere, we have to feel disappointed, not just with the loss of a good student but with the kind of decision making that involves a deception.”</p>
<p>Does anyone who applied EA to Chicago and ED to another school feel “deceptive”?</p>
<p>I didn’t apply ED anywhere else, but that’s just because I’m incapable of making decisions until the last minute. Had I decided that somewhere else-- Brown for example (just an example)-- was my top choice and UChicago was second, I would have had no problem applying ED and EA. It doesn’t mean I don’t really like Chicago. It doesn’t mean I’m deceiving or using Chicago. It just means I happen to think that this one school is a slightly better fit. I personally don’t think it’s deceptive, because even people who get in EA without applying ED elsewhere may or may not decide to attend-- that’s what makes it EA and not ED. Chicago is not required to be our top choice, and, as much as I like Chicago, the “assumption that any EA applicant thinks of Chicago as a top choice” is misguided. They chose to give applicants a choice through EA, and I love them for it, but they’ve GOT to realize that EA means not necessarily top choice. I’ve applied to two other schools EA that I now know I most DEFINITELY will not be attending because I got into UChicago. They were not my top choice, so did I deceive them? </p>
<p>And, really: I’ve seen countless posts stating that the poster MAY go to Chicago, depending on HYPS, and I don’t see how this is any different from an ED/EA combo. Granted, the student isn’t promising to attend another school if they get in, but the result is still the same-- they get into HYPS, and Chicago is out. Sad, but true.</p>
<p>So basically, I feel UChicago is being a little silly. This is EA. It is not binding. It also is not restrictive, meaning we can apply elsewhere ED or EA. I guarantee you that the other two schools I applied to EA are not operating under the same misconception that I’m putting them first, and if they are, too bad. Offer EA and you get EA. You can’t honestly say, “Well, I’m giving you the choice, but I assume you’ll choose me over everyone else, because anything else would be deceptive.” That’s ridiculous. It’s… well, the best adjective I can think of is hormonal. Offering one set of WRITTEN rules but expecting applicants to adhere to an entirely DIFFERENT set of UNSPOKEN rules.</p>
<p>Okay. Sorry for the rant. I do understand Chicago’s opinion, but that doesn’t prevent me from thinking it a bit silly…</p>
<p>Chicago being “a top choice” is hardly inconsistent with some other school also being a top choice, or even the top choice.</p>
<p>My daughter applied ED to Columbia and EA to Chicago, along with several of her friends and (I’m positive) dozens if not hundreds of others. Some of them got accepted ED at Columbia; most didn’t. More of them got accepted EA at Chicago. In my daughter’s case, which I doubt is uncommon, she knew a lot more about Columbia and other East Coast universities than she did about Chicago. She was interested enough in Chicago to apply, and the EA option was attractive, but it didn’t go much further than that. However, three months of focused marketing and love by Chicago after she was accepted (and while she was waiting for all those other colleges to make up their minds) made her a lot more comfortable with and enthusiastic about Chicago.</p>
<p>How many EA acceptees does Chicago really lose to ED elsewhere? A couple hundred? If it could get them (and only them) not to apply, the only effect would be to reduce the number of kids they could accept EA by an equal number (so as not to fill up too much of the class). If they forbade people to apply EA if they were applying ED somewhere (which is what Georgetown does), they would miss out on a bunch of applications from strong students who just miss the cut at Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth, Williams . . . (Not Brown. Brown forbids its ED applicants to apply EA elsewhere.)</p>
<p>So the EA/ED complex was a good deal for everyone, as far as I can tell.</p>
<p>I don’t see it as being deceptive, but then again, I’m one of those ED/EA students… and I got accepted to both. I read the quote though, and thought it was incredibly ridiculous.</p>
<p>If UChicago really wants to only have EA applicants that think of the university as THE top choice, then they should enter into a Restrictive Early Action, like Stanford, or an Early Decision program, like Northwestern.</p>
<p>I say that if you make the Early program unrestrictive, don’t complain later about losing so many admitted EA students to the students’ ED schools. :/.</p>
<p>I don’t see it as deceptive at all, especially these days. It’s really covering your own behind, and that’s the only way I see it. Again, there is a distinction for a reason.</p>
<p>I started this thread because, like JHS’s daughter, my son applied to Columbia ED and Chicago EA. Immediately upon his acceptance to Columbia last week, he withdrew from Chicago, thus ensuring that his Chicago “space” (if by chance he were to be admitted by Chicago) would be available for someone else. The only effect on Chicago from his experience is positive: my son is now a big fan of Chicago (having visited this fall), and is promoting it to his classmates.</p>
<p>I was disappointed by Mr. O’Neill’s statements.</p>
<p>I also did Columbia ED/Chicago EA (deferred/accepted). I always thought that EA meant “you are A top choice”, not “you are THE top choice”. Also, people who aren’t doing restrictive EA at my school are all doing like at least 5 EAs each lol.</p>
<p>I absolutely do not think that applying both ED and EA is deceptive. If they think it is, then make it restricted EA or ED. But if you tell students that they can apply to other schools while applying EA, I see nothing wrong at all with having a different first choice.</p>
<p>srrinath, I suspect that the Columbia ED/Chicago EA marriage has a lot to do with the common core and big city similarities, coupled with the rules of the game. Among top universities, there are very few Multiple Choice Early Action schools. I applaud Chicago’s position.</p>
<p>I believe Chicago would like the opportunity to engage in those “three months of focused marketing and love,” and by applying ED one precludes that processes if accepted, which is not the case if all other applications are EA.</p>
<p>srrinath, none of the other schools I’m applying to (both comparable and not) had non-restrictive early action, though my friend who EA’d to Chicago also EA’d at MIT; but I really hesitate to call MIT the same caliber because it’s such a math/science focused school, while Chicago and Columbia have huge liberal artsy cores. Btw, just want to make sure you know that Columbia is ED, not EA.</p>
<p>pbr, you’re absolutely correct that the many Columbia ED/Chicago EA people are going for big cities + big cores (in fact, it was a rather dominant subject of discussion at my Chicago interview >_>). This was the main motivation for me and my friend who did Columbia ED/Chicago EA/MIT EA (he wants to do engineering, hence the MIT lol).</p>
<p>Applying for multiple schools EA does not make the difference, as both are still suitors vying for the applicant’s love. It’s when the applicant betrothes himself or herself to a school and waits for that school’s approval that it does seem… if not deceptive… perhaps a bit unfair? As Columbia’s yes will trump Chicago’s yes by default?</p>
<p>But I agree that one can’t have his cake and eat it too. If Chicago had an EA policy where ED wasn’t allowed, it would probably turn away some potential applicants. That wouldn’t be so good, either.</p>
<p>S1 applied EA to Chicago, MIT and Caltech last year. He did not want to apply ED (and we didn’t want him to, either). He felt that multiple EAs were crucial because he had a slightly quirky profile and we just did not know how his GPA would fare with adcoms, despite the intensity of his schedule. It was his way of gauging his prospects in the competitive applicant pool. Chicago was his #1, but if the only option was ED, we probably would have waited til RD. </p>
<p>Deceptive? I think that thinking assumes that things like FA, merit money, etc. are not part of the decision matrix. Certainly for our family, we needed to evaluate the finances.</p>
<p>We will probably take a similar stance with S2 next fall, unless something unlikely and interesting happens with athletic recruiting.</p>
<p>That comment was harsh…and quite frankly, I’m a little hurt by it.
I would not have doneEA to Chicago had he said that to all the prospective EAers. I remember getting an email earlier in the year that PROMOTED the nonrestrictive EA, and that’s why I went for it. If he feels that it’s “deceptive”, he should just make it ED.
I did EA/ED because I wasn’t positive (of course I wasn’t!!) that I was going to get into my ED school. I applied to Chicago because I knew that if I wasn’t accepted to my ED school, I probably would have gone there. I don’t think that I violated any unspoken rule of respect at all…I just played the game smart and used it to my own advantage. The other people who did UChicago EA from my school ALL did ED to other schools. The two who got in were also the two who got into UPenn ED. Everyone seems to have done Columbia/UChicago ED/EA. I did UPenn/UChicago ED/EA and got into both. Again, it must be the big city allure.</p>