In comparing admission rates it’s important to also remember that a school like Caltech garners a very self-selected group of applicants. Their students’ 25th percentile ACT is higher or equal to 75th percentile at any school other than MIT.
UChicago could establish its good will by publishing admission stats for various rounds, like many other institutions.
I don’t want so saw further discord here. Things worked out wonderfully for my son and we are very his top choices recognized him as a match.
But I feel strongly that applying EA to UChicago is a bad choice for most candidates, and UChicago has every reason to not want to make it very clear.
@TheVulcan I can share my limited perspective on how I chose my schools based on my interests and what signal that may have sent.
I have pretty good stats and belong to the right demographic group when it comes to STEM and thus schools like Caltech and MIT were quite high on my list of schools to apply to. Having said that, I also have a big interest in a few humanities areas.
One of the big decisions for me, was deciding whether to do what your child did and apply EA to all three schools. After considerable thought, I decided that Chicago was a better fit for me to pursue a double STEM/humanities major, a humanities minor or if I changed my mind to abandon STEM completely and go for a humanities major. I wanted that flexibility because of my interests so decided to apply ED to Chicago. Till the very last minute, I had my Caltech and MIT apps ready to go but decided to just not apply given my interests. Our two cases sent different signals to Chicago because we self selected into two different pools.
Chicago did not try to force me into one of the pools or even try to imply what each pool would mean. In my mind, I see them just standing by and waiting for me to select my pool. That sent them a very clear signal, in addition to my essays that highlighted my interests and reasons for choosing them. Your child’s choice and essays sent them another set of signals and Chicago acted based on those signals which I am personally thankful for. If they hadn’t had two pools, I wouldn’t have had the chance to signal them differently from your child and that would have been unfortunate for me.
I personally feel that every school should read and act on the signals applicants send to it.
In addition, if an URM applicant chooses EA then the school should read and act on the signal one way, but if a UMC applicant chooses EA, then the school should read and act on the signal a different way and so on.
Doing this in no way means the school is being disingenuous or sneaky. I choose to interpret this as the school teaching it’s students that each action has consequences and the applicant should take these into consideration
@TheVulcan I also think that publishing separate Admit rate numbers by admission pool is actually counter productive and misleading.
Let’s say the school releases numbers that say that ED admit rate is 17% and EA rate is 6%. What can an applicant really learn from that information, that would be actionable and insightful?
Both pools will have a mix of various demographic categories. Legacies, athletes, full pay, first generation, URM, women, etc.
Each of these pools will have a different admit rates based on institutional needs and individual applicant characteristics. Knowing the average admit rate for each pool often gives bad and incorrect information to an applicant about their individual chances and no school releases detailed admit stats unless compelled by a court case like Harvard was compelled to do.
To assume that an unhooked applicant is better off in the ED pool than the EA/RD pool would be total folly as the Harvard case clearly shows. Unhooked UMC applicants really did not enjoy any unique advantage by applying SCEA to Harvard. They were just misled to think that their chances were better. They would have been better off making that choice based on other factors.
Again. My son is far from disappointed. If anything, he feels reassured that MIT, that he would choose over UChicago anyway, is the right place for him.
Regrettably, some of his friends that only applied EA to UChicago are disappointed. They are all exceptionally strong candidates, but they had essentially no chance at EA as unhooked UMC. They would probably be easy admits ED.
UChicago’s EA is very, very different from other school’s EA. If someone reading this thread next year chooses ED at UChicago or EA at another school based on our discussion, then this conversation will not have been in vain.
With all due respect Vulcan, your S is a STEM guy thru and thru. Two Subject Tests – both STEM. Awards = STEM.
I would have expected a Defer from UChicago (and several other colleges that focus on Liberal Arts). It becomes a matter of fit: both for him and the college. If I was an Adcom I would have Deferred him for yield protection. ‘His record is outstanding and he will likely get into other schools that better fit his interests. Even if I admit him, he aint’ coming, so I’ll look to kids who value the Core.’
Small nit: Those who are admitted EA tend to be price sensitive and**/or** wish to compare offers among various places. (They may not be so price sensitive but still want to compare colleges in the Spring.)
I have new to college confidential. Someone I know pointed this thread out to me. My S has a very similar to #385 profile. Has no hooks, but has another major international award in addition. I just wanted to say that he did have EA accepts at all 3 places including Chicago. So the situation is a bit more complicated…
Hi! I recently just got deferred EA from here and I am unsure of what to do now. I did decide to go EDII but I don’t know if I should submit another letter of recommendation (or two). The VP at my school has offered to write me one and a highly involved alum as well. Am I allowed to submit these? Also, good luck to anyone applying!
“please do not be sorry for my son’s deferral. He could not be happier with his MIT and Caltech admissions. As I stated earlier we expected no other outcome at UChicago (which I indicated prior to decisions being released in post #177).”
@Vulcan - So you and the Adcom are in complete agreement - your son wasn't the best fit for a liberal arts education and would not have committed to UChicago if accepted. So what's the problem exactly?
“the question at hand is not who applies ED vs EA. The question is who gets admitted EA.”
That's easy: those who are the best fit for a rigorous liberal arts education will be the ones admitted. It's a highly competitive pool. Lots of strong-stats candidates don't get admitted EA, just like how lots of strong-stat candidates aren't admitted ED1.
“(Feel free to correct me if there exists evidence on CC of strong unhooked candidates admitted EA.)”
We personally know EA admits who were unhooked, and we know several hooked and unhooked - all of them very high achieving - who weren't admitted. That's just the way it is when the admit rate is single digits. Yes, there have been unhooked EA admissions posted on CC and I just noticed one upthread from someone whose kid got into your son's two acceptances. It's complicated - and VERY competitive.
@bluebayou - I stand corrected - good point about comparing among other very selective colleges!
“I am simply sharing my observation that an unhooked applicant seems to stand no snowball’s chance in hell in UChicago’s EA round, by design. . . .Those sharing their EA results here could do next year’s applicants a favor by sharing their stats and demographics.”
Piece of advice, @Vulcan - next time you request info from others, you might try to come across as a bit less tacky. LLAP.
@kikidav follow the advice of your AO, and let him/her know how interested you are in attending! They may not need additional materials but they will give you instructions one way or the other.
I can’t figure out what is in the ED design that allows it to identify/select students with that “certain type” or “special U of C attitude” that U of C values that much? Does this mean that before ED U of C was selecting less capable of rigurous liberal arts education students and now U of C is fighting that lack of talent it used to attract with ED? The only special thing that I see in ED is financial power AND either knowing that U of C is absolutely the single school to which you would go OR it being your best hope and knowing you have zero chances at others. I would assume that admission officers are talented enough to be able to identify those desirable “special types” from essays, tests, rigurous curriculum that Jim talked about during his sell, from submitred video interview, extracurriculars? Is that not enough? If so, just fire all those admissions guys and replace them with AI! If ED is so capable of identifying those special attitudes, why even bother having ED2, EA, RD? Can’t U of C find enough special types from the ED round? Aren’t those “uninterested” from EA and RD rounds dragging down the wonderful spirit of U of C?
Why even bother deferring a student from EA? If EA applicants are unremarkable and uninterested or they are just dreaming about “ascension into elite status” shouldn’t they be rejected outright? Does U of C value those applicants?
On this thread “special types” or “certain attitudes” are not well defined. What are those and exactly how does ED work in selecting applicants with those special characteristics (especially if those characteristics are eluding admission officers)?
It also sounds to me that UofC does not really want those who are passionate about exact sciences and that those students would do better in places like MIT and Caltech, correct? One must have wider interests to be a good fit fo UofC. In By itself, loving the study of the universe, of the structure of cells, or secrets of the oceans is not enough. This kind of love for pure science must not be a good fit for UofC, not UofC type, right? I do remember how Jim was proud of UofC success in pre-med and how U is helping students to get shadowing opportunities at their hospital. Maybe UofC is just striving to become more pre-professional, like, let’s say Northwestern or Columbia. Maybe that is why they are trying to select those who could shadow their doctor father’ coworkers or played golf, or were presidents of equestrian or sailing teams.
@jhchicago ED1 tends not to get merit. Some might qualify for NM or university specific awards like first gen, military or police and fire, but more standard merit will be reserved for the EA admits since they haven’t yet committed.
Given that you also couldn’t figure out how ED works and thought a student needed to take a gap year if they declined an ED offer due to financial reasons, this is unsurprising. You appear to be making assertions based on your hurt feelings and guesses rather than actual data.
Yet another guess. Any data on this or does it just fit the sour grapes theme that some of the parents of the kids deferred and rejected seem to be brewing up?
This thread contains posts from a variety of admitted students and instead of congratulating them on their admission or simply staying silent, you feel it’s appropriate to denigrate them by implying they were admitted due to something other than their work. Keep classy, parents…
Quite the contrary, but don’t expect UofC (or any other liberal arts-focused college) to accept them all. Gotta build a class of science learners, lit learners, soc learners, philosophy learners, econ learners, and the like.
One way for a STEM guru to standout (from all the other STEM gurus) at a liberal arts-focused college is to take get a strong rec from their English teacher, ace the Lit (or a history) subject test…or take up a non-science EC.
Have never seen so many nonsequiturs in a single post as at #392, but I get it that @Thoughtprocess1 isn’t seeing anything distinctive in U of C culture and sees ED as a set-up to recruit the country-club set. The logic may be faulty, but the rage is real. Seems to me it would be best for him to move on to another school less corrupt, hypocritical, and plutocratic and leave us unreconstructed types at Chicago to nurse our illusions of specialness. However, for an answer to his question as to the rationale for ED, if he is really interested in an answer, I would refer him to @surelyhuman 's post #381, on which I can’t improve.
First citation was a question, not a guess. I just do not find any evidence that ED can do anything better than a capable AO could do.
Whatever attempts supporters of ED have made so far are all over the place: either EAs are not the right kind, or they want to ascend into elites, or they are too smart and would not have picked UofC anyway. A bunch malarkey. Every time you have avoided the obvious:
1. ED is mostly to favor the rich;
2. ED has nothing to do with any intellectual characteristics relevant to studying at UofC:
3. UofC thinks of itself as a less desirable university for smart kinds and uses ED to lock those afraid of taking chances. In the past it did not care that much about this but now that UofC wants to ascend into the "elite" group, ED is their way of reducing competition.
I agree with @TheVulcan that EA is to improve rankings. White males should avoid EA unless winners of olympiads or some other prestigious competitions.
Congrats to those admitted though. It is not my intention to diminish their accomplishments: I honestly have no doubt that they worked hard to get to UofC.
I do not think I shared son’s stats in this thread, so here they are:
ACT 36 (36/36/36/36, Sophomore year)
GPA 4.92W/4.0UW, SAT Math 2 800, SAT Physics 800,
13 APs (all 5) plus 3 more senior year
Major awards: ISEF 3rd place category and special awards, USACO Platinum, USAPhO Silver Medal, AIME qualifier
…And yes, he had a humanities LOTR, extracurriculars and awards (albeit not at the same level as his STEM awards are; state, not national and international).
UChicago is a fine school, academically, but they are playing the rankings game like few others, and I have little respect for that.
In contrast, Caltech and MIT have EA only (no ED), and their EA admission rates are the same as RD. They make the offers to their top candidates (adjusting the numbers for the expected yield). They have nothing to prove to USNWR king-makers.
