I feel like Cue must be right (strange words from my mouth) in suggesting that Harvard admits will come from a wealthier demographic - for all the reasons he suggests. This was strongly indicated by the analysis of the Duke economist (I forget his name now, but this was ventilated thoroughly on the Harvard forum) of the data coming out of the Asian-American law suit. The mystery is why greater levels of aid are dished out by Harvard, especially in view of the fact that the allure of the Harvard brand would seem to diminish this as a requirement of garnering the class it wishes. I wonder if it could be that a large part of the income generated by Harvard’s enormous endowment must be paid out annually in scholarships of one sort or another due to restrictions placed on gifts made to Harvard over the years. If so, that certainly gives them a competitive advantage - one they hardly need.
With respect to a “need blind” admissions policy, as many have said, the expression means only that needs are not taken into account in the admissions process. Once admitted, there is a corollary policy - that all admitted will receive the assistance that the University believes they require. Of course there is room for disagreement between applicants and universities as to what the latter require. But the fact that the U of C cannot provide the same level as Harvard does not render the assistance it can provide a sham and a delusion. It is pretty transparent, as I understand, about what it can provide. I see no reason to expect uniformity among schools in this as in any other aspect of their missions.
Not sure the issue is not being “need blind.” Absent evidence that they admit based on ability to pay, I think it’s ok to assume that they DO, indeed, admit “need blind” (with all the usual caveats about zip code, high schools and parental education levels, etc.). However, not all schools may truly be “no barriers” or “no loans” even if they say they are. (NB - all “no loans” schools might have a few students take out loans simply because they are cheap debt - esp. the subsidized versions. “No loans” policy doesn’t prevent you from taking out a loan if you want or need to).
The JHU vs Princeton result might have been due to merit aid (not sure what JHU offers there) - or it might have been due to P perceiving itself as being worth the extra expense - or it might have been due to the two schools having distinct formulas to calculate need. It’s possible for two different institutions, in good faith, to use different formulas, because parties can differ on which class of assets should be factored in and how (example is whether to include the non-custodial parent, as Mwfan pointed out).
UChicago’s financial aid worksheet is a relatively new thing - I think it went online a few years ago with my daughter’s class. It’s much easier to fill out than CSS, less nosy (doesn’t ask about retirement funds), and is free-of-charge. I actually like it a lot.
In the highest quintile ($110’ish) UChicago is more generous. In the lowest three (so $0-$75) Harvard is. As of 2017. But since Cue asked, I took a look at 2008-09 figures using Wayback. What I found is the following:
UChicago was more expensive than Harvard on a full pay and average net-price basis back then, just like today;
Harvard still had more matriculants who applied for any type of FA (81% vs 72%) and both percentages are higher for each respective institution than they were for 2017;
Both institutions granted a higher percentage of the class via institutional funding than they do today by about 5-7 points or so, and Harvard’s average grant size was still bigger than UChicago’s (by about $8k, vs $10k in 2017);
(not going to compare total $'s because the two schools were more distinct in terms of class size back then);
UChicago had 15% Pells in those days! It’s probably back to that now after dipping for several years. Harvard only had 13% Pells, vs. 17% today. However, “other federal grants” back then were given to 25% of the incoming class! That’s not so today. Also, not sure what those “other federal grants” are - could be a funding mechanism that expired and not renewed(?)
UChicago’s available institutional funds have nearly doubled in 10 years. ($21 million in 2008 vs $39 million in 2017). Average grant size has increased by 64% and tuition/fees/R&B by 43%. Therefore, UChicago is either more generous than historically or is now admitting an overall lower income segment than it used to.
Given that the number of Pells were a higher percentage of the class back then (UChicago matriculated 85 more Pell recipients in '08!) the lowest income segments (say, $0-$60) were not as well represented on campus as of 2017. That might help explain Empower and, in particular, going TO. UChicago surpassed peer schools in terms of Test Scores in 2012 or 2013 and the number of Pells fell from a high of 18%(!) of matriculated class in the last year of O’Neil/Behnke to 10-12% during the early Nondorf era, per Wayback. As mentioned previously, they have been working the past couple of years to increase that representation via Empower.
^ Addendum to above: Back in 2008, UChicago was significantly more expensive than was Harvard in ALL income quintiles. As mentioned in the prior post, as of 2017 UChicago was more expensive by a few thou for the three lowest quintiles ($0-$75), about the same price in the $75-$110, and less expensive in the $110+.
@JBStillFlying does your data (meticulously presented, i might add) suggest that Harvard achieved more SES diversity in the past decade, and Chicago skewed wealthier?
Again, that seems strange to me, given the institutional priorities Harvard has, and what’s happened at Chicago over a decade (Odyssey scholarships, for instance, started in what, 2008?).
Harvard still has to get squash players and fencers and sailors (notoriously high SES sports), and legacies are still a good chunk of the class. So, I’m confused by what your numbers suggest.
A. There is no doubt that UChicago’s need-based accessibility for the lower quintiles (so income up to $75k) has increased notably in the past 10 years. As of 2017, UChicago was a LESS EXPENSIVE school than it was 10 years ago for all income groups, but the largest change is in the lowest ones. There, UChicago is now half the net price that it was 10 years ago, despite notable increases in tuition/fees/R&B over that time period.
B. Harvard’s accessibility for the lowest quintiles (up to $48k) hasn’t changed over the 10 years. Net price was notably lower than UC 10 years ago, and is a few thou lower today. For the median group ($48-$75k) has come down by about $1.5k. From something like $4.5k to something like $3k more recently. So pretty low still, and a bit lower than it was. For the $75+ groups, Harvard’s tuition has notably INCREASED (probably due to tuition increases as well as not much available aid). As mentioned earlier, the net price is about equal to or greater than UChicago’s for these groups.
So we know that Harvard has more available aid - or gives out more available aid, at any rate - than does Uchicago, and has for awhile. However, UChicago has been making great progress in those lower quintile areas. That should have attracted exceptional applicants from the lower-income stata, even before the outreach got dialed up to “11” with the Empower Initiative.
This progress is very likely due to the Odyssey program which kicked off in 2008. Typical income levels for an Odyssey Scholarship are less than $90k, per the website. That rules out the highest quintile ($110k+) and a good portion of the 2nd highest ($75k-$110). My best guess - based on the fact that UChicago created Empower, is that Odyssey has been attracting exceptional candidates from the $60-$110k group but not necessarily from the $0-$60k group. We know that because the number of Pells went down as soon as applications went through the roof in 2012-2013. While the overall Pell number increased since that time along with enrollments, they stayed about the same % of matriculated class.
What does this all mean?
From 2008, UChicago was skewing less wealthy due to the Odyssey program.
UChicago lost some applicants/matriculants from the lowest income segment due to selectivity jumping in 2012. This might have caused the College to skew more wealthy and the impact might even have been fairly immediate.
UChicago hasn't changed that overall distribution much since that time except maybe to bring in more Odyssey kids at the expense of both richie-rich kids and very poor kids. They introduced Empower to change it.
Empower dials up the outreach to the very poor kids to 11 which will help the College skew less wealthy than it was in 2017. Most likely this will be at the further expense of the highest income group, but that's just a guess.
If used properly, these funding and mentorship programs are tools to help bring in the most qualified w/o regard to ability to pay. Regardless of how the distribution works out over time, I hope that's basically what's going on, and not some quota program.
As to squash players, fencers and sailors (don't forget crew!): how many does Harvard need? For instance, if total athletes are 20% of the Harvard 1,700+ matriculating class, thats a little less than 350 kids. How to divide that into "rich" vs. "poor"? The one person from my kids' high school who recently went on to fence for an Ivy was not a "rich kid" but was a high achiever academically as well as a talented fencer. There was probably outside funding involved or, at the very least, enormous sacrifice on the part of the family to help this student achieve his/her goals.
My best guess is that Harvard is interested in taking in exactly the right kids who fit its mission and purpose, and can overwhelmingly find them from all income brackets. It has the funds to be able to make a Harvard education 100% affordable to whomever it selects, and will charge according to ability to pay. This model will suggest having development cases, athletic cases, Questbridge cases, and everything in between.
@JBStillFlying - pardon, I didn’t mean “your” numbers, merely the #s you referenced from IPEDS. Some follow-up Qs:
Why would the selectivity jump in 2012 lead to lower numbers of SES students? Wouldn't an increase in the school's appeal actually increase the #s of low SES kids applying?
If I'm reading all this correctly, is Chicago *more* affordable today than 10 years ago, but the student body is also *more* affluent? As the school strives to lower the net price, wouldn't we predict the opposite would be the case? That is, as affordability goes up, the general wealth in the class goes down?
Moreover, 10 years ago, did Chicago have a *higher* percentage of students on fin aid than today (something like 70% vs. 60%)? Again, isn't that counter-intuitive?
I’m puzzled that a college that is getting more affordable would skew wealthier over the past decade.
Moreover, re your assertion that athletes only make up a certain % of Harvard's class, I'm still puzzled how Chicago's class could ever skew wealthier than Harvard's. While you get Low SES kids that fence or row crew, Harvard has so many priorities that skew to wealth - fancy sports, legacies, development cases, etc.
Chicago, on the other hand, simply looks for intellectual merit. Sports only make up maybe 7% of the student body - and it has few “wealthy” sports. Per @marlowe1’s analysis - wouldn’t Chicago vacuum up all the super smart kids that don’t have the pedigree, sporting prowess, or development wealth to get into Harvard? It seems easier to find middle class kids with high SAT scores than low SES kids who can sail or play golf.
It seems like a wealthier student body would naturally gravitate toward Harvard, for so many reasons. As recently as 2010 (as seen in the NY Times study) - that was clearly the case.
So, the thesis that Chicago has both gotten more affordable and now features a wealthier student body seems puzzling.
What happened over the past decade that made Chicago’s student body (seemingly) wealthier than Harvard’s?
I’m not at all ready to assume that Chicago’s student body is wealthier than Harvard’s, but whether it is or not, I’ll side with Hemingway against Fitzgerald. You know the famous exchange:
Fitzgerald: The very rich are different from you and me.
Hemingway: Yeah, they have more money.
Add this to Papa’s zinger: “… but their money doesn’t tell us much about them.”
Whatever may be the average wealth differential, if any, between the students of Harvard and those of Chicago it isn’t the most interesting thing about them. It really only tells us which of them has the super-richest handful of a few kids at the tippiest top of the spectrum. Chicago never used to have kids like that. The ivies have always had them. Now we have young Gates, whose family wealth must in itself excel the aggregate of all the other kids in the College. By himself he might make the Chicago student body the wealthiest one in America. But what meaningful thing does that tell us about either Chicago or this young man? Hemingway was right.
The question to ask is what sort of wealthy kid is coming to Chicago and what sort to Harvard. I believe there will be a pretty big difference in aspiration, interest, and personality as between those subsets. There will be considerably less difference between such kids and everyone else within the same school. These things are hard to measure, but that doesn’t make them less real. Young Gates, from what I hear of him, might be Exhibit A.
@Cue7 , you ask an exceedingly interesting question, to which I wish I were able to give a definitive answer. I can only put it that in my heart as a democrat and egalitarian I prefer your option 2. Something like that mixture of SES (but of course lacking the important feature of racial diversity) was characteristic of the older College. But a private institution requires a certain portion of its graduates to become very rich and capable of ploughing wealth back to the institution. That reality suggests option 1. I don’t think I have to choose between them, however, given that in the real world the “Chicago type” will come from both those demographics. If, however, your question asks me to imagine a Utopia, then the choice is clear for me. What about you?
@River65 , I believe the OP can take some pride in having inspired the usual far-ranging U of C discussion. He/she also got some useful information, and other commenters are welcome to give yet more; however, useful information is never the whole story at the University of Chicago. That’s in itself a useful thing to know about the place.
@River65 has a point - this is way off topic! NYT Upshot directly contradicts my earlier suggestion that UC skews more wealthy. H has more in the lowest strata (0-$60k) by about 6 points, and more in the highest strata ($110+) by about 9 points. It has HALF the representation in the middle strata ($60-$110k) than does UChicago (16% vs. 32%). So I hope that settles it. The middle class is alive and well - and, apparently happily willing to pay a premium for their education - at UChicago.
That’s actually an easier question to answer than OP’s. Whether to choose ED1 or ED2 is a personal decision that is best made w/o consideration of “maximizing chances” - these arbitrage opportunities are largely anecdotal and if they are so well known then why shouldn’t that impact everyone’s behavior? Prior threads are littered with disappointed applicants who chose ED1 because it was supposed to be easier . . .my gut says that deferring doesn’t tend to work anymore for ED2 and we know that it never worked for RD. So choose your ED to meet your needs but prepare for a w/l in either case. A 6% admit rate is just too low to expect otherwise.
@marlowe1 - I too would prefer option #2. At least here, we are firmly in agreement. Something about offering a chicago-caliber education to a skewed wealthier subset seems unfair. Maybe it’s not, but it just feels that way to me. I also enjoyed the SES diversity when I was at Chicago… I wouldn’t characterize the student body as particularly affluent at all. Now, I’m not so sure. Which leads me too…
@JBStillFlying - the NY Times Upshot data is from before Chicago’s big selectivity boom. (The date ended with, roughly, the classes of 2012 and 2013.) Do you contend that Chicago’s SES breakdown post-selectivity boom is the same as it was before?
I believe the % on financial aid has declined over the past couple decades - from ~70% to ~60%. That trend seems to contradict the point that SES diversity has remained consistent. What are your thoughts?
For the OP, as I understand it, the trend now with ED1 is that it should be your “top” choice combined with any leverage you have for admission. So if you’re in Brown’s SAT range, are a double legacy there, and you are a little below the cut at Amherst (but you love Amherst), pragmatic types may say… ED to Brown. Truth is most top-flight students would enjoy similar colleges almost equally.
@River65 the above discussion should clearly determine for the OP if they want to apply ED or not. If they really enjoy the discussion, they should apply ED. If they don’t, they should turn and run from UChicago.
@Cue7 I was hesitant before to pull from Upshot precisely due to the potential for old data. And UChicago’s a moving target so “old data” doesn’t even have to be that old! However, ending with Class of 2012-13 isn’t so bad as we started with Class of 2008 and we know that they likely haven’t become more skewed over time since 2012.
Harvard’s FA % also declined and, as I mentioned, this change for UC has only been since Class of 2020. Again, not sure what’s going on there. My guess is the presence or absence of work study grants, which may go used or unused. I believe that anyone filing for FA who isn’t given an institutional grant is still able to get work-study. And loans of course. Perhaps there are fewer loans taken out lately. Haven’t looked at those numbers.
OP, ED1 isn’t viewed any differently from the standpoint of the Adcom than ED2. Both rounds will get PLENTY of impressive apps. The advantage of ED1 is that you won’t get the HYPS early crowd, many of which will show up in ED2. However, ED2 might be a more “exclusive” round of admission as it’s still a highly unusual thing to see at a top elite. In the end it comes down to quality of the applicant pool and fit. Last year’s early round had a 7% admit rate (ED1+EA). Not a lot of evidence for a bump!
That may be true if there was a time machine to take them back to earlier U Chicago. As the last thread demonstrated, the new U Chicago is shaping up to be a different experience.
@River65 - here’s some newChicago for you then: if the OP has decided “elite research U” is for him/her, why not ED1 to Chicago? There is data to suggest that, of the ivy plus group, Chicago is best suited for unhooked applicants. If you want elite u, but aren’t a development case, legacy, or athlete, Chicago is probably the most welcoming of the mix, especially for ED1.
Not sure about the past 10 years vs. 2000-2010. UChicago’s selectivity went from 75% admit rate in the 90’s to 20% or so by 2009 and then declined significantly in the next few years after that. . I think they reached 30k apps by 2012 or 13 and the admit rate went under 10% for the first time then, so Class of 2014-17 makes sense for the “selectivity boom.”
Well I agree, I think ED1 is a better bet than ED2, I just can’t prove it. I was hoping some more informed people would have data. Meaning I suspect ED1 has a meaningfully higher acceptance rate than ED2, EA or RD.