<p>Does applying EA increase one's odds of admission? I wouldn't think so, since the admit rates are so similar. Correct me if I'm wrong.</p>
<p>No, not really.</p>
<p>EA can be useful for you as an applicant. Most EA applicants are deferred to RD, and if you’re deferred, you’ll have a chance to think about your application for a couple of weeks, and potentially send new or updated information to improve your application. People often find this useful – it’s nice to have some distance from the application to think about ways it could be better.</p>
<p>But MIT’s standards aren’t different in the EA round and the RD round. You should apply early if you think it will be helpful for you, but not because you think it will give you a competitive advantage.</p>
<p>At times, the admit rate for EA is higher than RA, but that is because the EA applicant pool is even stronger and more committed to MIT than the RA pool.</p>
<p>I have read many times on CC that the applicant pool is stronger for EA vs RA but I got the idea that that was just an assumption people were making to try to explain the reason for higher admit rates in the early action round. I don’t think that I ever saw an MIT adcom suggest that this was actually the case.</p>
<p>I think applicants in the regular admit round may get quite offended if admissions decided that they were probably less committed just because they completed their application 2 months later.</p>
<p>I think there is a more simple reason for slightly lower admit rates in RA: The entire international pool sends their applications in for RA. Then the admissions officers have their hands tied; no matter how strong the international applicats are the committee will still have to weed the acceptances down to less than 150 students.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean it in an offensive way, rothstem, but applying early generally indicates stronger interest in ANY college – not just MIT – because you put in the time and effort to apply early. It also means you did NOT apply early to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, CMU, or any other SCEA or ED school.</p>
<p>^^but in recent years some of the top students who are interested in science related major not necessarily “engineering” are strategically gaming the system to apply to MIT, Chicago, Caltech in non-restrictive non-binding EA (one can’t blame them)…and one can’t truly discern if that student’s number one is MIT, Chicago, or Caltech or any of the above…they may just want to secure at least one admission early to a top school and then apply to Stanford, Harvard, etc in the regular round…</p>
<p>…it actually makes sense because they won’t be competing with the recruited athletes at Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, or Yale during the SCEA round…</p>
<p>…MIT, Chicago, and Caltech historically have less emphasis on this…thank goodness.</p>
<p>It’s not really gaming the system to legally apply to 3 non-restrictive early action schools. Applying EA (nonbinding) is not a commitment and thus doesn’t indicate that it’s their first choice, but it still indicates that it’s at least among their top choices, or at least it isn’t really eclipsed by any ED or SCEA school.</p>
<p>Non-restrictive EA isn’t about only applying to your top choice (otherwise it’d be SCEA), but it still shows that MIT is high enough on your list to warrant going out of your way to apply early. And you’re not picking a SCEA/ED school over MIT, so there is a level of interest demonstrated.</p>
<p>If you don’t have a reason not to apply early, I strongly suggest applying EA to MIT. Getting it out of the way early has no downside, and if you’re deferred (as most are), you can send in a supplement if you feel the need to.</p>
<p>^ ED doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t apply EA - that would be an additional restriction.</p>
<p>
I’m in full agreement with luisarose here, and I’d add that applying EA also means you’re clued in to the admissions process sufficiently that you’re aware that an EA round exists. EA applicants (at all schools) tend to be wealthier and better-connected than RD applicants, which is why Harvard did away with their EA program a few years ago (although of course they’ve now decided to bring it back). </p>
<p>In MIT’s case, I suspect the differences between the EA and RD pools (at least in terms of domestic applicants; as rothstem notes, the quota on international admits does bring down the RD admit rate) have been narrowing in past years, as more students have the savvy and wherewithal to apply early. MIT used to limit EA admits (not including deferred students admitted during RD) to no more than 30% of the final class, but they increased that a few years ago because so many more students were applying EA than in the past ([Chris</a>’ blog](<a href=“http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/admissions_bulletin_ra_news_ea]Chris”>Admissions Bulletin – RA News, EA Results | MIT Admissions)).</p>
<p>I disagree.</p>
<p>A direct quote from the MIT admission’s page is, “There is no positive or negative prejudice associated with or conferred by applying during either cycle. We do not have a preference, and there is no strategic benefit to be had.”</p>
<p>Because MIT has the most transparent admissions office that I have encountered in my college search, I believe them when they say that applying EA will not help you get accepted.</p>
<p>Also, if there is a school with SCEA that is your second favorite school after MIT, it would probably be wise to apply to the SCEA school in the early round if that school favors early applicants. Then if you get accepted by MIT in RD you can go to MIT, your first choice school. But if you get rejected from MIT you will be glad that you applied early to your second favorite school and increased your chance of acceptance there.</p>
<p>This is one example of why applying in the RD round may not mean that you are less interested in MIT than another college. I also want to correct the remark that if you apply to MIT EA that means that you did not apply to another ED school, MIT is one of the few schools that you ARE allowed to apply to in the early round if you also applied ED to another college.</p>
<p>You’re correct about the ED and still applying to MIT EA thing – I misspoke.</p>
<p>I’m not necessarily saying that EA gives you an advantage. I don’t believe it does. But there is a slightly higher acceptance rate for EA and I’m giving potential reasons for that, outside of the generally repeated “stronger pool” argument (which, incidentally, I also believe).</p>
<p>
Of course it doesn’t necessarily mean that, but overall, in the entire admit pool, there is a tendency toward that behavior. Those who were accepted EA (and, I believe, those who applied EA and were deferred) have a higher yield than those who were accepted RD, for example, indicating that MIT was their first choice all along. </p>
<p>I don’t think there is any strategic advantage to applying EA that is conferred by the admissions office. But there are strategic advantages to applying EA nonetheless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are asking the wrong question. Assuming you are a high performing student (only high performing students get into the top schools), then you should apply EA to as many schools as you can. Then the question becomes: if one of your top choice schools is EA Single Choice, then where to you play your one card.</p>
<p>That is a question only you can answer. What are your other choices? Where do you really want to go? What schools can you apply to EA that are not SC?</p>