UChicago's $80k+ Sticker Price, New Admissions Statistics Out | Newsletter

"Official admissions statistics haven’t been released yet, but as the summer goes on, more information about the Class of 2023 is slowly becoming public.

83 percent of accepted applicants for the Class of 2023 chose to attend UChicago, a yield rate that marks a 7.8 percent increase from last year’s rate of 77 percent.
After tuition and housing cost increases for the 2019–2020 academic year, the College will carry the most expensive sticker price of any undergraduate education in the United States." …


Interesting that the cost of living on campus is so high, my DD moved off campus and her rent is $550/mo (she has a budget of $1000 a month), leaving $450 for food and incidentals. Frankly it would be advantageous for those on the Odyssey scholarship to move off campus. I doubt this will help keep more students on campus which seems to be a goal of the administration.

“Frankly it would be advantageous for those on the Odyssey scholarship to move off campus.”

  • The need-based award would decline to offset at least a portion of the cost savings. For the upcoming year, UChicago's budget shows a $5k savings due to living off campus. so those on substantial financial aid can expect the award to be reduced by that amount.


It may still be worthwhile but the savings at CU’s numbers above would be $3,000 for the academic year, rather than $8,000. And then, as the lease is typically a one year commitment, the renter is on the hook for the equivalent of at least one summer, although most seem to remain in the area (and in the apt) or sublet it out.

My guess is that the big yield increase from 77 to 83% is largely due to the 10-15% test optional admits. Those 1200/26 scorers probably would not have gotten any other offers than UChicago among top tier selective schools.

@jzducol Is there any data on the range of TO admits? How do we know they are 1200/26 scorers? Does Uchicago eventually ask everyone to submit their test scores similar to some TO schools?

I think the point that @jzducol is making is valid (of course the scores he just made up). There is a CC thread on a UChicago admit (test optional) that was denied everywhere but UChicago. Their story was so poignant with the adversity they had to overcome that it seemed they would have been admitted to any of the HYPS sans scores (I doubt they made it past the first 20 min look at Stanford). UChicago got a great kid from its test optional policy and I imagine there are many more just like them.

UChicago never indicated in its directions that enrolled TO’s need to submit their test scores. Very likely they don’t.

UChicago admitted approximately 6% of 34,600 applicants so they must have had an idea what yield would be. The increase from last year’s 77% could be due to TO; however, last year’s yield was a 5-pt. increase from the year prior (and the first year of ED). One common factor in both yield increases is that applications increased as well.

Adding ED I and ED II while keeping EA had the effect of increasing applications and yield. And this year additional TO did the same. Three years in a roll, each with a new trick, but it would hardly make a trend. We will see what is the ace up in Nandorf’s sleeve next year.

@jzducol - what was last year’s trick?

TO, and it worked, as both application numbers and yield rate rose.

For non-stem students, TO could really unearth some diamonds in the rough. If it were a trick, a pretty brilliant one imo.

@jzducol - TO was this past cycle (class of '23) and # of applications only increased by 2,400 over the prior year. Respectable, but hardly suggesting a jump in yield.

I was actually referring to the Class of '22 - what was the trick that prompted the application numbers to increase over 4k and yield to increase by 5 points? ED had already been introduced so it couldn’t have been that. In fact, the year ED was introduced, application numbers actually fell 10%.

I disagree that the jump in yield is attributed to TO. If the numbers being bandied are correct, where the % share of TO applicants accepted and the % share of TO applicants enrolling are the same, then we can only conclude that the yield rate of TOs is equal to the yield rate of the whole pool.

Trick or not, you cannot increase yield and decrease acceptance rate indefinitely. Besides, it is meaningless. Who cares if the acceptance rate is 5% and not 6%. If going TO brings a group of applicants that the university is actually interested in, is that a bad thing?

Just a guess, but 83% might be as good as it gets, although who really knows. Harvard’s yield has continued to climb and for all we know top yields will be 85% in a couple years’ time.

UChicago has been playing “catch up” with the popular kids for a few years now, and their application, admit and yield stats reflect those rapid changes. Clearly someone believes that the stats should reflect the highest levels of enthusiasm among the applicants and admits. Nondorf might be clever, but major policy shifts such as going ED and TO aren’t done without significant input and approval - and likely initiative - from the president and trustees. The latter, especially, have been vocal about the need to include more under-represented groups. Nondorf can devise the means (he’s the admissions expert, after all), but the vision itself seems to be a four-way-team effort once you include Dean Boyer.