<p>
</p>
<p>This is because of over-yield with regular students, not early admission ones. We can tell this is true from two years ago, when they admitted twice as many students as they had space for TOTAL, but still had room to accept people regular and did not go over their projected limit because they didn’t expect all of the early people to come. Some of those early people didn’t go because they were in binding ED agreements.</p>
<p>This year there were 10,318 applications and they admitted 13.8%, which is almost 1,600 already. Obviously all these people won’t be going, otherwise they never would have accepted them all.</p>
<p>However, the fact that they did accept them raises their change of matriculating – Halenford is right that a lot of people will attend the school they get into first, but the phrasing was a little derogatory in terms of lazy/not - studies on decision bias have shown that people, especially young people, are likely willing to like something (in this case a school) when it liked/wanted them. U of C is playing a yield game, but if they were a student’s first choice for EA, they will still come if accepted RD. There’s no opportunity cost to just waiting until later to issue the acceptance/see if they’d still like to do so, whereas under this theory there’s a lot to be gained for admitting an “overqualified” applicant they assume during regular would already have gotten into a more prestigious institution. Also, with regards to:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They don’t actually rereview all of these folders, though it’s sweet that everyone thinks so.<br>
a) Many EA applicants are dead in the water but still deferred out of courtesy, to prevent alumni families from getting upset and not donating as much as they would have, or to maintain relationships with certain schools that have historically been of value to them, even though they don’t want to particular applicant. Too many early rejections might be perceived as harsh, and counselors could advise students the next year not to apply because they don’t have a good chance; this is bad both because schools (Chicago in particular) want to max their application potential so they can look as difficult to get into as possible and because that school might actually usually produce students who are well prepared and/or a good fit.
b) They make notes on the applications and review the notes AND, because it’s the same person each time and they try to balance workloads in the office, if they are going to walk back through everything they can skim because they’ve read it before. If you’re memorable they don’t need to; if you’re not memorable you probably weren’t going to get in anyway.
c) I don’t know that the particular “test” the OP described is applicable to everyone who was deferred, but knowing that UChicago cares so much about yield, it’s possible in some cases they were wondering. Their reasons for caring about yield are legitimate (though I think, typical of an institution known for theory over practice, that they’ve gotten the execution all wrong) - they want to repair their reputation as a safety for the Ivies, among other things I can detail later if you’d like. Even if it’s illegit, the fact that they think it’s legit will drive them to do extreme things, possibly like sentencing themselves to read weekly emails from some borderline kid who just really wants to go.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree here, I guess. Reading the decision thread and knowing what happened at my school, the (GPA)(% possibility of yield) formula seems to have generated more than a few mistakes. If you’re trying to feel better about yourself after MIT, I don’t know that inviting us to place you in that category is the best way to do it.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think “8” is either ridiculous or the premises are true and the conclusion wrong. If anything, an early admit who doesn’t come gives them the idea that discussion of Chicago at your high school isn’t favorable, meaning they don’t think you would come either. I also don’t think “5” is necessarily right - EA is super political, and because the upswing in apps at Chicago has been so sudden, their RD prospects are volatile. They’ve given themselves a big safety net in case only marginally more people put in RD apps than did EA or if a lot of them are poor quality (a lot of trying to decrease your acceptance rate is enticing people who don’t actually have a shot to try anyway).</p>
<p>“7” might also be wrong. Chicago isn’t as hard as they like to claim it is, at least in the early years 
By the time you’re an upperclassmen, you probably have the skills to perform.</p>
<p>I do think the fact that they’re trying to max GPA is helpful to RD people in general, including those deferred: They’ve built the average well enough by this point that they have a fair cushion to add a couple of lower but definitionally less significant numbers to their statistic (more inputs means less weight for each).</p>
<p>So saying, I think your analytical skills are pretty good and that passion about topics of current interest is a pretty strong indicator of future success (not in college admissions, more like in life). You’ll be fine whatever happens, but good luck nonetheless (and you should send them a link to this post to show them how much you care… Just kidding)!</p>