^ There are going to be overlapping criteria, as mentioned earlier. But not sure how else one can interpret the statement: “And every university should do that. They should have a clear sense of their own purpose and then they should try to pick the students that would benefit the most from that, that would basically have the best chance of flourishing in that environment and then have an impact once they leave.” - except perhaps to conclude that all universities must have the same “own purpose.” Diermeier says elsewhere in the discussion that they don’t. UChicago will be similar to some universities more than others, and Diermeier suggested that he disagreed with some other schools’ specific purpose; that they might not be entirely consistent with his view of what a university should be about. But he does not discount that the various purposes are distinct, even unique, even if he doesn’t agree entirely with many of them.
Tuition/fees/room/board are well below a “market-clearing” price! The entire point of the question was why as a non-profit the university felt comfortable leaving money on the table (which it does).
ED was bound to come up in this current (cc) discussion. Diermeier didn’t mention ED but he did talk about need-blind. If the university admits based on “who will most flourish” rather than ability to pay, then it must admit irrespective of parent’s income, which is why it (and others) have need-blind admissions (and I’d add ‘meets full demonstrated need’ to that). According to Deirmeier, the entire point of need-blind admissions is in order to use the selection method that creates the best match with the university’s goals. In this context, ED is more about “right fit” than “full pay.” It’s an admissions strategy for better aligning interest and self-selection with admission and matriculation. This context also aligns with the school’s own messaging at the time that ED was offered and it aligns with our own experience with ED and financial aid, as well as that of other families who have posted that UChicago is more generous with need-based financial aid than many other schools.
It’s possible that you are using “who will most benefit” in an economic sense as opposed to more of a “human development” sense? Diermeier meanst the latter. “Irrespective of parent’s income” is not the same thing as “low income.” There are plenty of admits who are full pay; not the majority, based on the stats, but plenty nonetheless simply because preparation for elite education is highly correlated with parent’s income. However, the College has pretty aggressively expanded its outreach and messaging to segments of the applicant pool who will end up attending free of charge (or practically so). Why would those applicants NOT apply ED if UChicago was truly their first choice?
Edit to add: Diermeir is the first generation in his family to graduate from high school, apparently, and “need-blind” and “irrespective of parent’s income” seemed to be strong issues with him. I wish someone had brought up the issue of ED to get his views!