<p>So everyone has heard about Harvard discontinuing its EA program and Princeton following suit. </p>
<p>(If you haven't, here's a link: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2462519%5B/url%5D">http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2462519</a>)</p>
<p>Arguably, MIT needs its EA program about as much as Harvard does - which is to say, it can predict yield handily without employing one. Anybody want to venture a guess as to if or even when MIT will drop its EA?</p>
<p>let's not forget the WHY behind dropping EA. Harvard's EA was accepting some 3 times the percentage of applicants than RD, and it was single-choice which limited applicants and yielded higher. It was getting to the point where it put RD applicants at a severe disadvantage.</p>
<p>now look at MIT, the RD acceptance rate is higher than EA, you can apply to as many EA programs as you like, EA/class capped at 1/3, I just don't see any reason for MIT to hop in line behind them.</p>
<p>The reason so many people find problems with Early Decision is basically what pebbles just said- it put those who can't or won't apply ED at a distinct disadvantage. Early action doesn't really have that problem associated it. The only reason I've heard for discontinuing EA is that people find it confusing since they've probably only ever heard of ED and RD. </p>
<p>That, however, is a really dumb reason for getting rid of something, a little like the new "Dining Dollars" system which just makes life more complicated.</p>
<p>(MIT doesn't have a meal plan like most schools, so you can't buy x number of meals per week. We just put money into what basically amounts to a debit account and use that money to buy food at the dining halls. Apparently, MIT felt that this confused parents, who had only ever heard of actual meal plans, so they implemented this program where some of the money in your debit account can be designated for food only. Which of course just makes it more confusing and grossly underestimates the average intelligence of the entire world.)</p>
<p>I think EA should be killed for aesthetic reasons.</p>
<p>But what are the actual advantages of having an EA program? The benefits of ED are obvious, but honestly, EA just becomes a way to "play the game". I'm not really saying there's anything bad about the program so much as I'm saying I don't think all that much is good about it.</p>
<p>I agree about EA -- MIT's EA program is designed simply to allow people to be notified early of their admissions decision, not to "increase chances" or put anyone at a disadvantage. That's the advantage -- people can apply early and have their college application season over by the middle of December.</p>
<p>I also agree that Dining Dollars is up there with the most stupid things ever conceived by the MIT administration. "But, but... if you don't have a meal plan... how will my baby eat dinner?"</p>
<p>I think EA, especially as it exists at MIT, no particular admissions advantage, is of benefit mostly to the lucky applicants who get accepted. Unfortunately, you don't really get notified early enough to make that much difference. We still put together teacher recommendation packages for all the colleges. And with Stanford's Dec. 15 application deadline, we'll have to do the whole package there.</p>
<p>In our case early notification was a big help by dropping applications that had been started but were nowhere near completion . A bigger advantage was a full three plus months of stress free high school. A revamping of the whole ED program (EA?) would IMHO be a better solution than elimination of the program.</p>
<p>I concur that dining dollars is about as stupid a program as I've seen. I assume my child can figure out how to purchase food without outside help.</p>
<p>Well, not everyone applies to Stanford. Even if you've finished all your applications, getting into your top choice (or one of) allows you to withdraw applications from schools in which you're not as interested. Doing so wouldn't save you any time or money but it would be respectful.</p>
<p>Remember, Harvard does not use EA but "EASC" which is really bad against many applicants</p>
<p>MIT, on the other hand, use EA (not limit you to apply to other school of EA)</p>
<p>Dining Dollars... I have happily ignored its existence and will continue to do so.</p>
<p>And I thought I could use the Dining Dollars Account to limit my son's intake of (and expenses for) food? LOL</p>
<p>I do think EA benefits admissions staff in a way that is good for both them and the applicants, since the staff get some early information on the relative popularity of their school that year and a chance to read some of the applications early rather than most after January 1.</p>
<p>We have no plans to drop EA at this time. Our EA program is not binding in any way, so it does not disadvantage any part of the applicant pool. Having two additional months to read applications means that readers have more time to spend reading each application. As a thorough reading and understanding of each applicant is paramount to our process, we wouldn't change anything that would jeopardize this...</p>
<p>I suppose things could change down the road, but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>EA really doesn't help MIT too much, since the early pool is demographically way out of balance; they cannot risk accepting a high fraction of the early applicants and have any hope of crafting a "diverse" class - gender-wise or any other wise.</p>
<p>For this reason, MIT will never be able to fill half the class from the early pool - like a Yale, Penn or Columbia; indeed, it makes very little sense for MIT to retain the practice if Harvard, Princeton and (possibly) Stanford don't.</p>
<p>To be sure MIT may enjoy a short-term yield rate edge, if it gets to "give the first kiss" to certain talented science students blocked from applying early elsewhere, but my guess is that this yield rate bonanza will subside as applicants adjust to the new situation.</p>
<p>"EA really doesn't help MIT too much, since the early pool is demographically way out of balance"</p>
<p>Since our DD is in this group which demographic catagory are we out of balance with?</p>
<p>Why since they restrict EA to a maximum of 1/3 of the class would they care about admitting 50%?</p>
<p>Why do you think yield is as important as obtaining the best fit for the school
when the data suggests yield is a lower priority at MIT?</p>
<p>MIT doesn't want to fill half the class from the early pool -- early admissions are strictly capped at 30% of the total class.</p>
<p>For that matter, although I'm not sure how much I trust the Tech's reporting, they reported that 27% of the early admits were URM, while the overall URM percentage for the class was 19%. (EA</a> article, RA</a> article)</p>
<p>That does not contradict what I said. Obviously they took all the URMs they possibly could from the EA pool, (although the yield rate would probably be be low, comparatively).</p>
<p>And the "core group" - ie, Asian males - probable constituted a disproportionate share of the early pool, and were admitted at a comparatively infinitessimal rate - at least originally.</p>
<p>Then, how about the ladies?</p>
<p>The way I read the stats, there were 2,967 completed early apps, of which 377 were admitted at the outset and 12% (or 284) were admitted after being deferred.
The total of 661 original early pool applicants who were admitted probably matriculated at a higher rate than the "true" RD applicants, and probably constitute closer to 50% of the class than 30%.</p>
<p>Please tell me where I'm way wrong, if I am.</p>
<p>probably probably probably probably. you must be well-versed in probability you sure do bring it up a lot.</p>
<p>Yes, how about those ladies?</p>