^ Hard to know. Last year was the first year that anyone on CC even learned they were offering the switch to deferred ED’s as well as deferred EA’s. One downside is that there will be strong new ED2 apps AND strong deferred EA’s who missed an admit simply because they didn’t apply ED1. Both groups may have an advantage over deferred ED1’s. Not that new apps or deferred EA’s are automatically given ‘preference’; the criteria will be best fit, and both groups will have plenty of candidates who will make the cut, based on what we’ve seen in prior years. Still, some deferred ED1’s will get in so it’s worth a shot if you don’t have another strong ED2 preference lined up.
Daughter got deferred (EA).
Stats:
SAT: 1590, Essay: 7/7/8
Subject: 800 (Math II), 800 (Bio E), 800 (US Hist)
GPA: 4.79(W)/3.95(UW)
Awards:
National AP Scholar
National Merit Semifinalist
EC:
Debate club and competitions
Science Olympiads
2 research internships
Several National Honors Societies
AP:
8 APs (before senior): Human Geo(5), US Gov & Pol (5), CS Principles (5), US Hist (5), Phys C Mech (4), English L & Comp (5), Calc AB (5), Biology (4)
6 APs in the senior year: AP Calc BC, Compar. Gov, English Lit. & Comp, Phys C: E&M, Psychology, Statistics
I thought her essays were extremely well written: I simply enjoyed reading them.
To anyone applying regular decision who is looking at this thread: I’ve been talking to uchicago students a lot for the last 24 hours and what we all have in common is excessive EC. Put as much ECs as you can in your app And good luck! See you guys soon 
[QUOTE=""]
we all have in common is excessive EC
[/QUOTE]
How does this relate to learning for the sake of learning image U Chicago is trying to project?
Maybe because a lot of kids can get straight A’s if they study hard enough. ECs show that you go above and beyond. Meaning that you don’t only go to school, but then you shadow a doctor or get an apprenticeship following a certain career path. It also demonstrates motivation if you are like an award winning musician or national model UN winner.
And studying hard enough does not show motivation? I, however, see a different trend: started a small business, founder of a start-up, golf club president, model UN,…
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1876468-uchicago-now-a-top-recipient-of-preppies.html (see, e. g., #12)
The ED process is designed for a specific class of people and the selection bias is obvious.
@JBStillFlying I’ve passed on your request to him 
Here is what he has: As of Dec 20th, here are the FB stats the last couple of years
Classes of 2021: 379 ED1 declared Dec 16
Class of 2022: 338, ED1 declared Dec 18
Class of 2023: 533 ED1 declared Dec 17
Class of 2024: 329, ED1 declared Dec 18
When ED2 results were declared around 2nd week of Feb, here was the FB count
Classes of 2021: 795
Class of 2022: 952
Class of 2023: 901
Class of 2024: ??
Based on what I’m seeing with my friends at school and anecdotal information at some of the other forums, looks like the limited window of arbitrage that lasted the last couple of years wrt UChicago’s ED admit rate relative to it’s peers may have ended with this year.
I even know of a few cases of legacies being outright denied during ED1 which is surprising. Something definitely changed this year. Just don’t know what.
@ThoughtProcess1 , though there has always been the allegation out there that the ED process is designed to snag rich full-payers, you ought to consider another possibility: that it is designed to identify a certain type of kid who may have excellent stats and EC’s but more than that - a certain attitude toward learning. Many a young person approaches learning - and perhaps also the cultivation of ECs - only for their instrumental value in getting them to a school of high prestige as the next step to ascension into elite status. Chicago has not historically been that kind of school. I am one who believes that the Admissions people continue to seek kids who show that special UChicago attitude. In a pile of applications full of kids with high stats and good ECs that could explain why some are chosen and some are passed over.
@surelyhuman at #325 - you and your dad make a great team! This is valuable information.
They really ramped up the outreach under the Empower Initiative this year, which we can see from the amount of website devoted to it. With very specific, generous and - important! - automatic financial aid available to these recruits, there may not be a need to compare UChicago to other schools. The applicant is free to apply to UChicago as a clear first choice, which means ED1 (and probably also ED2 when the time comes). It’s a new way of viewing ED - not necessarily just to bring in a critical mass of full-pay, although clearly that happens as well; rather it’s also a way to wrap up admissions for a target group early on. That could be what’s happening.
Of course besides the obvious issue of using FB as a proxy especially with such few data points (years), there is another problem that this generation increasingly doesn’t use FB. My kids don’t.
ED, REJECTED I GUESS THIS IS DESTINY.
Regarding the differential numbers on ED1 specifically from @surelyhuman’s post, they may have lowered the admit rate this year; however, that only makes sense if they are expecting yield to go through the roof. Too early to tell on that. Based on what we know from this forum and the forum that rhymes with Shred It, the number of EA admits appears very low, as usual. So it’s the ED1’s that are interesting. Let’s watch over the next few days because kids could just be busy with wrapping up their HS semester right now and will join the group over the next couple weeks. By Jan. 1 there should be a more firm ED1 count. Also, a few may not be posting how they were admitted?
Regarding ED2, it looks like about 400 admitted every year? Not surprising. Last year they admitted about evenly between EA/ED1 and RD/ED2 pools (approximately 1050 for each). That might have looked something like 400 each for EA and ED2, and 650 each for ED1 and RD. Just a guess, but it seems reasonable enough.
If you’re are wondering why the admissions process at Chicago is relatively Byzantine, you need look no further than the school’s (largely successful) interest in reaching Ivy status in rankings and popular opinion. Here are a few ways that this quest impacts the school’s applicants:
- The reported SAT stats are on par or higher than any college in the country, except Caltech. So, if you have very high stats you’re more likely to gain acceptance to UofC than to an Ivy - especially (or perhaps only if) you can navigate the admissions process. This is not to say that Chicago doesn’t reject some high stat kids. But if you’re near 1600 without a hook you have a much better shot at Chicago ED than you do at Harvard or Stanford or probably most of the other Ivies. Chicago is much more aggressive in pursuing high-stats kids than the Ivies. And unlike the the Ivies, it awards merit scholarships to PSAT/NMF kids.
- The reason that a lot of ‘preppy’ kids go to UofC is that these are high-stats kids without hooks who used to go to Ivies. The Ivies have quotas (much lower than they were a generation ago) at places like Andover and Exeter, so a lot of high-stat kids at these and other high-end coastal public and private schools have to look elsewhere. Chicago has become a popular choice for this category of student.
- The admissions system is designed to maximize yield and minimize the percentage of accepted applicants. RD pretty much exists to pad the school’s admission stats. It’s almost a waste of time to apply RD, since UofC prefers to lock in the candidates it wants early rather than compete for them in the general pool.
- The test optional policy is largely a way to get candidates that the college wants to round out its class without lowering its averages.
- Chicago does not publish common data set stats (or if they do, they are hidden quite well). Almost every other college in the country does. (Columbia - another school that likes to control its stats, also does not appear to release CDS data). What does this mean? There’s probably data that the school would rather not have you see. Most likely, this includes the percentage of enrolled student who actually take the SAT. (likely lower than 70% and possibly much lower).
None of this is to say that OofC isn’t a fine school. It’s just that when it comes to admissions, it plays by its own rules.
@KB10001 Did you get in? I’m applying test optional also but I’m in the ED2 round.
@minimickey , the first part of your post #331 seems logical. The latter part, which attributes primary motivation to manipulation of the numbers, seems improbable. Do you have any evidence of this?
TO is part of the Chicago Initiative to recruit greater numbers of unconventional and disadvantaged kids. That seems to have been largely successful. Why do you rule out that the stated objective, which was actually realized, could have been the true motivation?
Chicago selects approximately half its admits from the nonbinding pools. How does that justify a conclusion that those pools exist only to pad admission statistics? There are those who have Chicago as a first choice, and they have a chance to show this in one or other of the ED pools. Others want to cast the net wider; they can do this at the EA and RD stages. Chicago knows that those latter kids do not necessarily see Chicago as first choice and that it will lose some of them if admitted; nevertheless it would like to get some of them, and in fact it does (the rate of acceptance from these pools is very high - I believe around 70 percent or thereabouts). No doubt many no-hopers apply at all stages and in all pools. That’s not manipulation; it’s a result of the recent rise of desirability of this school.
I agree entirely with your last statement: Chicago does play by its own rules. What other reason could there be for this than that it wants to recruit the best possible student body for the rather different kind of school it is?
The motivation for UCs unusual admissions system is fully known only by the school’s admin. That being said, it has been widely speculated that a or perhaps the goal of the schools admissions system is to drive selectivity numbers and thus rankings and popular perception. And the numbers certainly support that. Chicago’s yield is higher than most Ivies (80 percents) due to large# of binding admits. This in turn drives down the % of applicants the school takes. I think that if you run the numbers on the RD admits it is something like 1-2 percent. Does this make it futile to apply RD? I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. You might compare to Harvard where it’s around 2-3 ish% (low indeed, but perhaps 50-100% higher than UC) or a school like Dartmouth maybe 4-7%. Perhaps popular opinion is wrong - but if one were to design an admission system to juice the numbers, it would look a lot like UC’s.
@mimickey at #331 - UChicago was declining to publish a CDS back when it only admitted EA and RD . . . AND long before it went TO since it did so just last year.
Nondorf told Chronicle of Higher Ed that between 10 and 15% of applicants went TO and they enrolled a similar percentage. So if it’s north of 30% that would be a real whopper he told. All for believing that Admissions Offices lie - but not quite that boldly.
Also, UChicago eliminated the $4,000/yr guarantee to the NMF kids about three years ago. Those who enter as NMF’s may get the College Sponsored Scholarship of $2,000/yr or they may get the one-time $2500 NM scholarship. A few who don’t list UChicago as First Choice on their NMF portal in time may get nothing at all. And - importantly - a whole lot of NMF’s end up deferred and waitlisted. EA admits might get some additional monies but it’s probably not related directly to NMF.
“The motivation for UCs unusual admissions system is fully known only by the school’s admin. That being said, it has been widely speculated that a or perhaps the goal of the schools admissions system is to drive selectivity numbers and thus rankings and popular perception.”
- It's known to many more than the school's admin LOL. You need to read Boyer's history. They need a dedicated undergraduate population who will in later years help support the school and its endowment. That's WAAY more important that USNWR college rankings. Growing the College w/o a commensurate increase in quality of entrant would completely defeat their goals.
“And the numbers certainly support that. Chicago’s yield is higher than most Ivies (80 percents) due to large# of binding admits. This in turn drives down the % of applicants the school takes. I think that if you run the numbers on the RD admits it is something like 1-2 percent. Does this make it futile to apply RD? I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. You might compare to Harvard where it’s around 2-3 ish% (low indeed, but perhaps 50-100% higher than UC) or a school like Dartmouth maybe 4-7%. Perhaps popular opinion is wrong - but if one were to design an admission system to juice the numbers, it would look a lot like UC’s.”
- Correcting the above (mis)information:
-
UChicago’s yield was 81% because the non-binding yields are high as well as binding. For the 1,726 enrolled as the Class of '23, approximately 1050 were probably ED’s, leaving another 676 who matriculated as ED/RD admits. That happens to be about a 65% yield for the non-binding. ED of course is at or near 100%.
-
Estimated RD admit rate is around 4% so very consistent with other top elites. Actual RD/ED2 combined admit rate was around 5% last year (1050 admits out of a total 19,600 applications).
If you look at the National Merit Scholar Corp. annual report you will see that UofC sponsors a large number of merit scholarships. No Ivy school does that. My NMS daughter (not interested in UofC) received letter from UC suggesting she could receive up to 20k merit scholarship. Didn’t get that letter from any Ivy.
Remember TO is not the only way to avoid including SATs in reported data. In fact, Ivies generally report 60-80%ish taking SAT in CDS. UofC reports middle SAT range 0f 1500-1560 last year. Low end for Ivies like Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth etc. is more like 1400. One reason for this may be athletic recruiting, but probably does not account for whole disparity. Are these kids simply absent from OofC? Unlikely I think. Of course we don’t know how to account for this because we don’t have the data. Do we know why OofC (and maybe Columbia) is pretty much alone in not publishing CDS?
@minimickey , the “wide speculation” of unnamed others is not an argument, as they teach in HUM 2, though it may tell us something about the predisposition of the speculators. They will usually be found to have an animus against this school for one reason or another or simply for having gotten out of its lane in the popularity sweepstakes.