<p>“On the other hand, do you think that Caltech and MIT convert that “early like” into an admission advantage? As far as I know, MIT has never given much advantage to its early admissions, and still offers a non-restrictive early admission.”</p>
<p>Xiggi - my two cents.</p>
<p>Both MIT and Caltech provide women with a higher chance of admission as a percentage of applicants which is an advantage for really good candidates. </p>
<p>I think it would prove to them you are a serious about STEM major as opposed to worried about getting into the highest ranked school, all things being equal. I know a few girls at Stanford who all applied to Caltech and MIT early and got in. They are serious about engineering or CS and were sure they would be happy attending any of those three schools. Knowing the admissions lottery, they preferred having a shot at two schools EA rather than go SCEA with just one. D did the same and would have been quite happy to attend MIT but she probably would not have developed a taste for football. :p</p>
<p>Whether Amy had a shot at any of the schools with a different strategy is anybody’s guess without knowing what the essays said. My guess is that her packaging was not that good based on the fact that Harvard increased the number of early admits by a big number and she did not get in. OTOH, Harvard has no required essays which means it becomes harder to impress with writing. I will go with your assessment of navel gazing ECs as being the problem.</p>