Chicago's new Provisional Acceptance program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has ED and RD.
Princeton has single-choice early action and RD.

Chicago has SSEN or ED0, ED1, EA, ED2, RD and now provisional acceptance. Is it all just a game to them?

Yes, it's game theory, don't hate the players, hate the game (admissions process). For the home of Economics, this is what they do, I admire it, super smart to match university/student. This is an intellectual approach of matching, from one of the most intellectual places. For those that don't know, game theory is the mathematical study of strategic interactions between rational decision-makers. This is what every college should be doing. They are just outsmarting you lol

You don't know what game theory is, do you?

The problem is that Chicago is not transparent, esp. re EA (which has an acceptance rate near 0% and is merely a mechanism to get more applications/ try to get those students to switch to ED 2.

It's the lack of transparency that people (ok, me) resent.

PP isn't entirely wrong. UChicago is just playing the hand it was dealt with; they would lose kids to top Ivys if competing for them without these tactics. They have to use gamesmanship to get as many full pay, smart kids through the door as possible, which they appear to be doing successfully. And none of this detracts from the fact that the school is truly a great research university. If anything, their strategy will likely pay dividend with a robust alumni base in the future. Also, having a school where the admissions outcome for a bright, high stat kid is more predictable than some isn't a bad thing. With so much criticism lobbed at UChicago, perhaps its worth scrutinizing others as well.

I fully agree with you. Always surprised how the same people who dump on UChicago have no issues with Princeton and Brown accepting athletes with 1200 SAT scores (yes, you can see that on Scoir!).

There is a vast difference between accepting a few athletic recruits with low test scores and U Chicago accepting so many students ED that they have the highest yield in the USA. Do you really think that U Chicago attracts more fervent admirers than HYPS or is U Chicago just taking advantage of nervous students who want to get in “somewhere good” and are willing to give up their choices for a large admissions preference from Chicago

Well that’s cute that you believe it’s just a few athletes with low test scores. Many of the top schools fill more than 3/4 of the class with their priority candidates - VIPs, athletes, legacies, etc. As for taking advantage of kids? Stop with the victim mentality. These are mostly well off kids with high stats and with the ability to decide how to play the game. You can’t whine just because one school thinks the applicants shouldn’t hold all the cards. What Chicago clearly wants is a match - they want you to want them and vice versa. Medical residency programs for example also do a variation of this. And lastly, Chicago is not just “somewhere good” - it’s somewhere great. All the belly aching about one school using a different strategy for admissions is ridiculous. Move on. Or go complain about Yale admissions with its love for field hockey and lacrosse recruits or Duke with it legacy ones. Spread the whine elsewhere.

Yes, they want well-off kids. So they provide add’l avenues to acceptance for those with money.

I agree with the PP: it’s a very good school that plays games with admissions to maximize yield of wealthy students while talking all about how much they care about mental and emotional well-being.

[Anonymous]

FYI: Yield was eliminated from the ranking U.S. News college formula around 2004 because of concerns about manipulation and its limited contribution to overall ranking outcomes. Current U.S. News methodology does not include yield — instead focusing on things like graduation and retention rates, outcomes, peer assessment, faculty resources, and other measures of student success and institutional performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has ED and RD.
Princeton has single-choice early action and RD.

Chicago has SSEN or ED0, ED1, EA, ED2, RD and now provisional acceptance. Is it all just a game to them?

Yes, it's game theory, don't hate the players, hate the game (admissions process). For the home of Economics, this is what they do, I admire it, super smart to match university/student. This is an intellectual approach of matching, from one of the most intellectual places. For those that don't know, game theory is the mathematical study of strategic interactions between rational decision-makers. This is what every college should be doing. They are just outsmarting you lol

You don't know what game theory is, do you?

The problem is that Chicago is not transparent, esp. re EA (which has an acceptance rate near 0% and is merely a mechanism to get more applications/ try to get those students to switch to ED 2.

It's the lack of transparency that people (ok, me) resent.

PP isn't entirely wrong. UChicago is just playing the hand it was dealt with; they would lose kids to top Ivys if competing for them without these tactics. They have to use gamesmanship to get as many full pay, smart kids through the door as possible, which they appear to be doing successfully. And none of this detracts from the fact that the school is truly a great research university. If anything, their strategy will likely pay dividend with a robust alumni base in the future. Also, having a school where the admissions outcome for a bright, high stat kid is more predictable than some isn't a bad thing. With so much criticism lobbed at UChicago, perhaps its worth scrutinizing others as well.

I fully agree with you. Always surprised how the same people who dump on UChicago have no issues with Princeton and Brown accepting athletes with 1200 SAT scores (yes, you can see that on Scoir!).

There is a vast difference between accepting a few athletic recruits with low test scores and U Chicago accepting so many students ED that they have the highest yield in the USA. Do you really think that U Chicago attracts more fervent admirers than HYPS or is U Chicago just taking advantage of nervous students who want to get in “somewhere good” and are willing to give up their choices for a large admissions preference from Chicago

Well that’s cute that you believe it’s just a few athletes with low test scores. Many of the top schools fill more than 3/4 of the class with their priority candidates - VIPs, athletes, legacies, etc. As for taking advantage of kids? Stop with the victim mentality. These are mostly well off kids with high stats and with the ability to decide how to play the game. You can’t whine just because one school thinks the applicants shouldn’t hold all the cards. What Chicago clearly wants is a match - they want you to want them and vice versa. Medical residency programs for example also do a variation of this. And lastly, Chicago is not just “somewhere good” - it’s somewhere great. All the belly aching about one school using a different strategy for admissions is ridiculous. Move on. Or go complain about Yale admissions with its love for field hockey and lacrosse recruits or Duke with it legacy ones. Spread the whine elsewhere.

Yes, they want well-off kids. So they provide add’l avenues to acceptance for those with money.

I agree with the PP: it’s a very good school that plays games with admissions to maximize yield of wealthy students while talking all about how much they care about mental and emotional well-being.

As far as well-off kids are concerned, the UChicago demographics is not any different than Duke’s. (Take a look at their respective common datasets).

[Anonymous]

Do you know if there is a way to register children for ED to Chicago at birth? You know, like how you used to have to register your kid for Eton? Chicago should consider this — especially while US News remains ascendant, lest it no longer in 18 years be considered top 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you know if there is a way to register children for ED to Chicago at birth? You know, like how you used to have to register your kid for Eton? Chicago should consider this — especially while US News remains ascendant, lest it no longer in 18 years be considered top 10.

Wow, you are so brilliant! Do you want a cookie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know if there is a way to register children for ED to Chicago at birth? You know, like how you used to have to register your kid for Eton? Chicago should consider this — especially while US News remains ascendant, lest it no longer in 18 years be considered top 10.

Wow, you are so brilliant! Do you want a cookie?

Chicago Hater is becoming desperate (while conveniently ignoring the fact that US News doesn't use yield in its rankings, and hasn't for over 2 decades).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know if there is a way to register children for ED to Chicago at birth? You know, like how you used to have to register your kid for Eton? Chicago should consider this — especially while US News remains ascendant, lest it no longer in 18 years be considered top 10.

Wow, you are so brilliant! Do you want a cookie?

Not teething yet. Is there a register for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know if there is a way to register children for ED to Chicago at birth? You know, like how you used to have to register your kid for Eton? Chicago should consider this — especially while US News remains ascendant, lest it no longer in 18 years be considered top 10.

Wow, you are so brilliant! Do you want a cookie?

Chicago Hater is becoming desperate (while conveniently ignoring the fact that US News doesn't use yield in its rankings, and hasn't for over 2 decades).

Who said anything about yield? Forget ED0. Chicago needs ED -18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has ED and RD.
Princeton has single-choice early action and RD.

Chicago has SSEN or ED0, ED1, EA, ED2, RD and now provisional acceptance. Is it all just a game to them?

Yes, it's game theory, don't hate the players, hate the game (admissions process). For the home of Economics, this is what they do, I admire it, super smart to match university/student. This is an intellectual approach of matching, from one of the most intellectual places. For those that don't know, game theory is the mathematical study of strategic interactions between rational decision-makers. This is what every college should be doing. They are just outsmarting you lol

You don't know what game theory is, do you?

The problem is that Chicago is not transparent, esp. re EA (which has an acceptance rate near 0% and is merely a mechanism to get more applications/ try to get those students to switch to ED 2.

It's the lack of transparency that people (ok, me) resent.

PP isn't entirely wrong. UChicago is just playing the hand it was dealt with; they would lose kids to top Ivys if competing for them without these tactics. They have to use gamesmanship to get as many full pay, smart kids through the door as possible, which they appear to be doing successfully. And none of this detracts from the fact that the school is truly a great research university. If anything, their strategy will likely pay dividend with a robust alumni base in the future. Also, having a school where the admissions outcome for a bright, high stat kid is more predictable than some isn't a bad thing. With so much criticism lobbed at UChicago, perhaps its worth scrutinizing others as well.

I fully agree with you. Always surprised how the same people who dump on UChicago have no issues with Princeton and Brown accepting athletes with 1200 SAT scores (yes, you can see that on Scoir!).

There is a vast difference between accepting a few athletic recruits with low test scores and U Chicago accepting so many students ED that they have the highest yield in the USA. Do you really think that U Chicago attracts more fervent admirers than HYPS or is U Chicago just taking advantage of nervous students who want to get in “somewhere good” and are willing to give up their choices for a large admissions preference from Chicago

Well that’s cute that you believe it’s just a few athletes with low test scores. Many of the top schools fill more than 3/4 of the class with their priority candidates - VIPs, athletes, legacies, etc. As for taking advantage of kids? Stop with the victim mentality. These are mostly well off kids with high stats and with the ability to decide how to play the game. You can’t whine just because one school thinks the applicants shouldn’t hold all the cards. What Chicago clearly wants is a match - they want you to want them and vice versa. Medical residency programs for example also do a variation of this. And lastly, Chicago is not just “somewhere good” - it’s somewhere great. All the belly aching about one school using a different strategy for admissions is ridiculous. Move on. Or go complain about Yale admissions with its love for field hockey and lacrosse recruits or Duke with it legacy ones. Spread the whine elsewhere.

Yes, they want well-off kids. So they provide add’l avenues to acceptance for those with money.

I agree with the PP: it’s a very good school that plays games with admissions to maximize yield of wealthy students while talking all about how much they care about mental and emotional well-being.

As far as well-off kids are concerned, the UChicago demographics is not any different than Duke’s. (Take a look at their respective common datasets).

And yet Duke can achieve the same without the admissions games. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has ED and RD.
Princeton has single-choice early action and RD.

Chicago has SSEN or ED0, ED1, EA, ED2, RD and now provisional acceptance. Is it all just a game to them?

Yes, it's game theory, don't hate the players, hate the game (admissions process). For the home of Economics, this is what they do, I admire it, super smart to match university/student. This is an intellectual approach of matching, from one of the most intellectual places. For those that don't know, game theory is the mathematical study of strategic interactions between rational decision-makers. This is what every college should be doing. They are just outsmarting you lol

You don't know what game theory is, do you?

Well, Duke can’t do an ED -18. It would come off as too elitist. Chicago is about merit; ED is a great way for Chicago to ensure that top, high stats kids can be admitted to a top school. Newborns can be tested; if they are high stats in grasping etc. they should have a way to apply ED -18 to Chicago.

The problem is that Chicago is not transparent, esp. re EA (which has an acceptance rate near 0% and is merely a mechanism to get more applications/ try to get those students to switch to ED 2.

It's the lack of transparency that people (ok, me) resent.

PP isn't entirely wrong. UChicago is just playing the hand it was dealt with; they would lose kids to top Ivys if competing for them without these tactics. They have to use gamesmanship to get as many full pay, smart kids through the door as possible, which they appear to be doing successfully. And none of this detracts from the fact that the school is truly a great research university. If anything, their strategy will likely pay dividend with a robust alumni base in the future. Also, having a school where the admissions outcome for a bright, high stat kid is more predictable than some isn't a bad thing. With so much criticism lobbed at UChicago, perhaps its worth scrutinizing others as well.

I fully agree with you. Always surprised how the same people who dump on UChicago have no issues with Princeton and Brown accepting athletes with 1200 SAT scores (yes, you can see that on Scoir!).

There is a vast difference between accepting a few athletic recruits with low test scores and U Chicago accepting so many students ED that they have the highest yield in the USA. Do you really think that U Chicago attracts more fervent admirers than HYPS or is U Chicago just taking advantage of nervous students who want to get in “somewhere good” and are willing to give up their choices for a large admissions preference from Chicago

Well that’s cute that you believe it’s just a few athletes with low test scores. Many of the top schools fill more than 3/4 of the class with their priority candidates - VIPs, athletes, legacies, etc. As for taking advantage of kids? Stop with the victim mentality. These are mostly well off kids with high stats and with the ability to decide how to play the game. You can’t whine just because one school thinks the applicants shouldn’t hold all the cards. What Chicago clearly wants is a match - they want you to want them and vice versa. Medical residency programs for example also do a variation of this. And lastly, Chicago is not just “somewhere good” - it’s somewhere great. All the belly aching about one school using a different strategy for admissions is ridiculous. Move on. Or go complain about Yale admissions with its love for field hockey and lacrosse recruits or Duke with it legacy ones. Spread the whine elsewhere.

Yes, they want well-off kids. So they provide add’l avenues to acceptance for those with money.

I agree with the PP: it’s a very good school that plays games with admissions to maximize yield of wealthy students while talking all about how much they care about mental and emotional well-being.

As far as well-off kids are concerned, the UChicago demographics is not any different than Duke’s. (Take a look at their respective common datasets).

And yet Duke can achieve the same without the admissions games. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has ED and RD.
Princeton has single-choice early action and RD.

Chicago has SSEN or ED0, ED1, EA, ED2, RD and now provisional acceptance. Is it all just a game to them?

Yes, it's game theory, don't hate the players, hate the game (admissions process). For the home of Economics, this is what they do, I admire it, super smart to match university/student. This is an intellectual approach of matching, from one of the most intellectual places. For those that don't know, game theory is the mathematical study of strategic interactions between rational decision-makers. This is what every college should be doing. They are just outsmarting you lol

You don't know what game theory is, do you?

The problem is that Chicago is not transparent, esp. re EA (which has an acceptance rate near 0% and is merely a mechanism to get more applications/ try to get those students to switch to ED 2.

It's the lack of transparency that people (ok, me) resent.

PP isn't entirely wrong. UChicago is just playing the hand it was dealt with; they would lose kids to top Ivys if competing for them without these tactics. They have to use gamesmanship to get as many full pay, smart kids through the door as possible, which they appear to be doing successfully. And none of this detracts from the fact that the school is truly a great research university. If anything, their strategy will likely pay dividend with a robust alumni base in the future. Also, having a school where the admissions outcome for a bright, high stat kid is more predictable than some isn't a bad thing. With so much criticism lobbed at UChicago, perhaps its worth scrutinizing others as well.

I fully agree with you. Always surprised how the same people who dump on UChicago have no issues with Princeton and Brown accepting athletes with 1200 SAT scores (yes, you can see that on Scoir!).

There is a vast difference between accepting a few athletic recruits with low test scores and U Chicago accepting so many students ED that they have the highest yield in the USA. Do you really think that U Chicago attracts more fervent admirers than HYPS or is U Chicago just taking advantage of nervous students who want to get in “somewhere good” and are willing to give up their choices for a large admissions preference from Chicago

Well that’s cute that you believe it’s just a few athletes with low test scores. Many of the top schools fill more than 3/4 of the class with their priority candidates - VIPs, athletes, legacies, etc. As for taking advantage of kids? Stop with the victim mentality. These are mostly well off kids with high stats and with the ability to decide how to play the game. You can’t whine just because one school thinks the applicants shouldn’t hold all the cards. What Chicago clearly wants is a match - they want you to want them and vice versa. Medical residency programs for example also do a variation of this. And lastly, Chicago is not just “somewhere good” - it’s somewhere great. All the belly aching about one school using a different strategy for admissions is ridiculous. Move on. Or go complain about Yale admissions with its love for field hockey and lacrosse recruits or Duke with it legacy ones. Spread the whine elsewhere.

Yes, they want well-off kids. So they provide add’l avenues to acceptance for those with money.

I agree with the PP: it’s a very good school that plays games with admissions to maximize yield of wealthy students while talking all about how much they care about mental and emotional well-being.

As far as well-off kids are concerned, the UChicago demographics is not any different than Duke’s. (Take a look at their respective common datasets).

And yet Duke can achieve the same without the admissions games. Why is that?

Well, Duke can’t do an ED -18. It would come off as too elitist. Chicago is about merit; ED is a great way for Chicago to ensure that top, high stats kids can be admitted to a top school. Newborns can be tested; if they are high stats in grasping etc. they should have a way to apply ED -18 to Chicago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has ED and RD.
Princeton has single-choice early action and RD.

Chicago has SSEN or ED0, ED1, EA, ED2, RD and now provisional acceptance. Is it all just a game to them?

Yes, it's game theory, don't hate the players, hate the game (admissions process). For the home of Economics, this is what they do, I admire it, super smart to match university/student. This is an intellectual approach of matching, from one of the most intellectual places. For those that don't know, game theory is the mathematical study of strategic interactions between rational decision-makers. This is what every college should be doing. They are just outsmarting you lol

You don't know what game theory is, do you?

The problem is that Chicago is not transparent, esp. re EA (which has an acceptance rate near 0% and is merely a mechanism to get more applications/ try to get those students to switch to ED 2.

It's the lack of transparency that people (ok, me) resent.

PP isn't entirely wrong. UChicago is just playing the hand it was dealt with; they would lose kids to top Ivys if competing for them without these tactics. They have to use gamesmanship to get as many full pay, smart kids through the door as possible, which they appear to be doing successfully. And none of this detracts from the fact that the school is truly a great research university. If anything, their strategy will likely pay dividend with a robust alumni base in the future. Also, having a school where the admissions outcome for a bright, high stat kid is more predictable than some isn't a bad thing. With so much criticism lobbed at UChicago, perhaps its worth scrutinizing others as well.

I fully agree with you. Always surprised how the same people who dump on UChicago have no issues with Princeton and Brown accepting athletes with 1200 SAT scores (yes, you can see that on Scoir!).

There is a vast difference between accepting a few athletic recruits with low test scores and U Chicago accepting so many students ED that they have the highest yield in the USA. Do you really think that U Chicago attracts more fervent admirers than HYPS or is U Chicago just taking advantage of nervous students who want to get in “somewhere good” and are willing to give up their choices for a large admissions preference from Chicago

Well that’s cute that you believe it’s just a few athletes with low test scores. Many of the top schools fill more than 3/4 of the class with their priority candidates - VIPs, athletes, legacies, etc. As for taking advantage of kids? Stop with the victim mentality. These are mostly well off kids with high stats and with the ability to decide how to play the game. You can’t whine just because one school thinks the applicants shouldn’t hold all the cards. What Chicago clearly wants is a match - they want you to want them and vice versa. Medical residency programs for example also do a variation of this. And lastly, Chicago is not just “somewhere good” - it’s somewhere great. All the belly aching about one school using a different strategy for admissions is ridiculous. Move on. Or go complain about Yale admissions with its love for field hockey and lacrosse recruits or Duke with it legacy ones. Spread the whine elsewhere.

Yes, they want well-off kids. So they provide add’l avenues to acceptance for those with money.

I agree with the PP: it’s a very good school that plays games with admissions to maximize yield of wealthy students while talking all about how much they care about mental and emotional well-being.

As far as well-off kids are concerned, the UChicago demographics is not any different than Duke’s. (Take a look at their respective common datasets).

And yet Duke can achieve the same without the admissions games. Why is that?

First off: ALL colleges need high-income, full-pay students. Many are need-aware for this reason (Emory, Colgate). HYPS has a never ending pipeline of extraordinarily wealthy, sometimes famous, parents who are happy to write checks, curry favors with board members, etc. They also have enormous sports programs and recruit hundreds high-income kids for obscure sports (looking at private school commit Instagrams, you could be forgiven for thinking that Stanford is nothing but a giant rowing team). Duke has sports + fantastic weather + a rabid alumni base. Chicago doesn't have any of this, and they also want to make sure the kids they admit can handle serious academic rigor. IMO their admissions shenanigans are less about the USNWR and more about survival. I look down on them for it, but no more than I look down on Ivies and Ivy+ for kissing celebrity ass, or admitting droves of less-qualified kids who play ridiculous sports, or all the various other forms of admissions shenanigans out there.

[Anonymous]

If Chicago is such an amazing school, why are they so desperate for students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has ED and RD.
Princeton has single-choice early action and RD.

Chicago has SSEN or ED0, ED1, EA, ED2, RD and now provisional acceptance. Is it all just a game to them?

Yes, it's game theory, don't hate the players, hate the game (admissions process). For the home of Economics, this is what they do, I admire it, super smart to match university/student. This is an intellectual approach of matching, from one of the most intellectual places. For those that don't know, game theory is the mathematical study of strategic interactions between rational decision-makers. This is what every college should be doing. They are just outsmarting you lol

You don't know what game theory is, do you?

The problem is that Chicago is not transparent, esp. re EA (which has an acceptance rate near 0% and is merely a mechanism to get more applications/ try to get those students to switch to ED 2.

It's the lack of transparency that people (ok, me) resent.

PP isn't entirely wrong. UChicago is just playing the hand it was dealt with; they would lose kids to top Ivys if competing for them without these tactics. They have to use gamesmanship to get as many full pay, smart kids through the door as possible, which they appear to be doing successfully. And none of this detracts from the fact that the school is truly a great research university. If anything, their strategy will likely pay dividend with a robust alumni base in the future. Also, having a school where the admissions outcome for a bright, high stat kid is more predictable than some isn't a bad thing. With so much criticism lobbed at UChicago, perhaps its worth scrutinizing others as well.

I fully agree with you. Always surprised how the same people who dump on UChicago have no issues with Princeton and Brown accepting athletes with 1200 SAT scores (yes, you can see that on Scoir!).

There is a vast difference between accepting a few athletic recruits with low test scores and U Chicago accepting so many students ED that they have the highest yield in the USA. Do you really think that U Chicago attracts more fervent admirers than HYPS or is U Chicago just taking advantage of nervous students who want to get in “somewhere good” and are willing to give up their choices for a large admissions preference from Chicago

Well that’s cute that you believe it’s just a few athletes with low test scores. Many of the top schools fill more than 3/4 of the class with their priority candidates - VIPs, athletes, legacies, etc. As for taking advantage of kids? Stop with the victim mentality. These are mostly well off kids with high stats and with the ability to decide how to play the game. You can’t whine just because one school thinks the applicants shouldn’t hold all the cards. What Chicago clearly wants is a match - they want you to want them and vice versa. Medical residency programs for example also do a variation of this. And lastly, Chicago is not just “somewhere good” - it’s somewhere great. All the belly aching about one school using a different strategy for admissions is ridiculous. Move on. Or go complain about Yale admissions with its love for field hockey and lacrosse recruits or Duke with it legacy ones. Spread the whine elsewhere.

Yes, they want well-off kids. So they provide add’l avenues to acceptance for those with money.

I agree with the PP: it’s a very good school that plays games with admissions to maximize yield of wealthy students while talking all about how much they care about mental and emotional well-being.

As far as well-off kids are concerned, the UChicago demographics is not any different than Duke’s. (Take a look at their respective common datasets).

And yet Duke can achieve the same without the admissions games. Why is that?

First off: ALL colleges need high-income, full-pay students. Many are need-aware for this reason (Emory, Colgate). HYPS has a never ending pipeline of extraordinarily wealthy, sometimes famous, parents who are happy to write checks, curry favors with board members, etc. They also have enormous sports programs and recruit hundreds high-income kids for obscure sports (looking at private school commit Instagrams, you could be forgiven for thinking that Stanford is nothing but a giant rowing team). Duke has sports + fantastic weather + a rabid alumni base. Chicago doesn't have any of this, and they also want to make sure the kids they admit can handle serious academic rigor. IMO their admissions shenanigans are less about the USNWR and more about survival. I look down on them for it, but no more than I look down on Ivies and Ivy+ for kissing celebrity ass, or admitting droves of less-qualified kids who play ridiculous sports, or all the various other forms of admissions shenanigans out there.

This. Except I don’t look down on them for it. Why would you look down on an institution trying to survive? They are being rational actor true to their Chicago School of Econ roots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Chicago is such an amazing school, why are they so desperate for students?

Well, Chicago is not desperate for any student. We just want to maintain metrics so that our ranking doesn’t fall out of top 20.