Case and Cleveland both exceeded our expectations, by a long margin. We would have never known had we not visited.
Other schools, Brown and Cal in particular were scratched. Both have amoebic campuses where it’s hard to tell the end of campus and the beginning of town. He didn’t like that. Others love those campuses. They only way to know is to visit.
I really wish, but we honestly don’t have the time to go to California,even for a few days. I’m planning on visiting UT Austin in a few weeks though. But for the schools that don’t take demonstrated interest into account (according to the common data set), would visiting help with admission chances?
No. But virtual tours will help you understand each school better (and perhaps guide your essays).
Have you looked at the other schools suggested on this thread?
You are running late for visits. But visits do make a huge difference in understanding fit. You should do virtual tours, info sessions, student panels and departmental sessions for schools you are really interested in and cannot visit. There’s the benefit in demonstrating interest but also in figuring out your priorities and improving your essays.
That’s why it’s important to visit. I spent a lot of time in Berkeley, and do not feel that way at all. `The campus is pretty well bounded by Heart on the North, the hills on the east, Shattuck on the west, and yes, the south is more fluid, but beyond Bancroft or Durant there isn’t much, apart for dorms. But los of places have dorms a good ways away from the instructional buildings. (MIT’s west campus dorms are over a mile from Sloan School buildings) How much that bothers people is a factor.
I am not sure if visiting would help if the schools claim they don’t take demonstrated interest into account. The cynic in me says that no matter what the school claims, they will favor you if they think there is a good chance you will attend if accepted (especially if the school is sick of being the safety for other schools, like CMU is the safety for MIT and Stanford). Back to eye’s earlier point, your opinions of the schools on your list might change drastically after seeing the campuses.
Do you know any students who recently graduated from, or currently attend, any of the schools on your list? Speaking to them might give you a better idea of what the schools are like.
sgopal has a point. Early Admission is the new Regular Admission. Apply early where ever you can, and apply ED to your top choice.
Agree with the importance of early applications. My post 23 tried to emphasize my opinion of the trade offs there, but we haven’t heard anything from the OP about early applications.
Personally, I would never allow my kid to ED to a school that had not been visited. EA, sure, go on ahead. ED? You need to visit to see if it will be what you actually think it is.
My top choice is MIT, and they don’t have ED, only EA so I’m not sure what to do. Right now, I’m applying EA to UIUC, GT, and MIT
Just wondering, what’s your rationale for the Caltech admission percent? Is it not more competitive than MIT?
That is good. Do the other schools on your list not offer EA? From everything I have read, EA applications are accepted at a higher rate than regular admission applications.
Don’t think Caltech is more competitive than MIT
It is, ever so slightly. In 2020 MIT was just above 7% and Caltech was just below. The bounce back and forth though. At both, the admission rate for women is about double that of men.
Not sure the acceptance rate is a meaningful measure of selectivity in many cases. The applicant pools could be self-selecting and different.
They’re not in the case of those two schools.
The applicant pools are presumably different enough that Caltech believes that typical US standardized tests are useless to them (SAT/ACT-blind) while MIT believes that they are useful to them (SAT or ACT required), though probably mostly for quickly rejecting low scorers rather than giving high scorers any boost.
No, they don’t, they only offer REA or ED. Also, forgot to mention, I’m also applying EA to UT Austin
Caltech’s applicant pool is a subset of that of MIT, so in that sense, its applicants as a group are more self selected. There’s a significantly wider range of students who apply to MIT, which may make the tests more useful to MIT.
Agree. CalTech is generally considered an easier admit than MIT in that pure stats and “just one” significant accomplishment often results in admission. Interestingly though, the last few times CalTech didn’t accept the strongest students that applied to it from our school. Instead it took slightly weaker students that visited the campus.