<p>So if the EA program at MIT doesn't really benefit the school, and doesn't really benefit the students.....why keep it?</p>
<p>Maybe because it does indeed benefit the school and benefit the students; both those admitted, for obvious reasons, and those deferred who can supplement their applications for the regular round.</p>
<p>Well, I think it's hard to make that argument -- it does benefit the school, because they can read a subset of the applications early rather than reading them all in one crush in the spring. MIT notifies RA applicants about two weeks before most schools do, which probably wouldn't happen if they had to read all apps at once.</p>
<p>The obvious benefit for students is that EA admits are able to relax about the application process in mid-December. More subtly, people who are deferred to the RD pool are able to think about weak points in their applications and send extra materials to help their cases for the RD review. EA applicants deferred into the RD pool get a completely fresh look by the admissions committee plus the benefit of a few months to think about their applications.</p>
<p>I see MIT's EA program as really just an RD program with earlier deadlines.</p>
<p>With all due respect, those points stretch credulity, Mollie.</p>
<p>The Jan 1-April 1 period to review RD apps is far less of a "crush" than the frantic 30-day period for reviewing EA/ED apps, which must be completed with absolutely no evidence about academic performance past the 11th grade.</p>
<p>It is absurd to claim there is an "obvious benefit" for students who can "relax" after submitting their early applications, particulatrly when at a school such as MIT a full EIGHTY-SEVEN PERCENT of them are NOT ADMITTED!!</p>
<p>Not a problem, you say, since the huge rejectee majority can "think about weak points in their applications" .... Sure thing, Mollie! Just like all those convicted by the jury can "think about the weak points" in their cases to strengthen their chances on appeal! Small consolation, IMHO!</p>
<p>MIT, of all schools, should end an early program in which it admits sub-groups at wildly different rates in order to begin a drive for the "diversity" which its early pool does not have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Jan 1-April 1 period to review RD apps is far less of a "crush" than the frantic 30-day period for reviewing EA/ED apps, which must be completed with absolutely no evidence about academic performance past the 11th grade.
[/quote]
MIT's RD selection goes from mid-February to mid-March -- this year it started on February</a> 17 and ended March</a> 11.</p>
<p>Most EA applicants are deferred rather than rejected, so they have about a month to think about their applications. Students are welcome to send additional recommendations, essays, or other materials, and many students do.</p>
<p>I'm not going to address anything about the diversity of either pool, because frankly we don't have access to that information, and I think it's silly to speculate. In general, MIT does not seem to have a problem finding qualified low-income or URM applicants.</p>
<p>EDIT: And don't get all self-righteous on me, Byerly. I'm a bona fide member of your team now, too, and I have the ID card to prove it.</p>
<p>oooh... she went there.</p>
<p>Well, Mollie, I don't see anything in your recent post to contradict what I said earlier, or anything unique by way of "benefits" for early round deferrees at MIT vs deferrees at HYPS or most other schools. The principal unique feature of the applicant group at MIT (hardly a secret) is that it is so heavily male. The flip side of the coin, among elites, is getting to be Brown, where the applicant group was 61-39% female this year. In each case, there may be a fear that having to admit more students per seat (under an RD only approach) would inhibit efforts to achieve gender balance while striving for other diversity goals. I can see where, in some cases, this would be a legitimate factor preventing a move away from an early admissions program.</p>
<p>As best I can figure it, MIT had 2,965 completed EA apps, of whom 377 were admitted initially and 295 were admitted after deferral; this means a 22.5% admit rate for those who applied EA, and a 10% "true RD" admit rate.</p>
<p>College Confidential
Bringing out the best in people since 2004</p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Well, Mollie, I don't see anything in your recent post to contradict what I said earlier,
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
The Jan 1-April 1 period to review RD apps is far less of a "crush" than the frantic 30-day period for reviewing EA/ED apps, which must be completed with absolutely no evidence about academic performance past the 11th grade.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>MIT's RD selection goes from mid-February to mid-March -- this year it started on February 17 and ended March 11.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>3 months vs. 1 month for, what was it, 7000-8000ish apps. yes, sounds about the same.</p>
<p>ummm... just had to get that off my chest.</p>
<p>Now THIS is the conversation I was trying to start! CC has seen too many chances threads and not enough argument about things only we (and a few juniors) care about lately. I was almost desperate enough to prompt the "Is it true that MIT girls are ugly?" discussion again. Anyway, carry on. :)</p>
<p>If anyone calls me ugly, all hell WILL break loose.</p>
<p>Just saying.</p>
<p>In an effort to level the undergraduate playing field and increase diversity, Harvard and Princeton recently abandoned their Early Action and Early Decision programs, respectively....</p>
<p>The recent eradication of early policies at Harvard and Princeton culminate a 10 year arms race by elite universities trying to gain a top U.S. News College ranking...</p>
<p>Wealthy students have been caught up in an arms race of their own hiring expensive consultants and tutors to fine tune college applications is now the norm. But the buildup in spending on pre-college expenses leaves behind a significant part of the applicant pool, as many applicants to top schools do not have the resources to hire consultants or attend schools with such strategically aware college counselors. MIT admits 26 percent of its class early, and the early admissions rate is significantly higher than the regular decision rate. At a top tier private high school, the norm is to apply early to a top school, thereby increasing ones chance of getting in. Conversely, at an inner city public school where the majority of the student body does not attend college, students are less likely to be encouraged to apply early. They should not be penalized in the application process.</p>
<p>An early application process forces students to play a strategy game with universities.... Having a standard admission procedure would remove some of the importance of strategy from the admissions process, forcing it to be more merit based. Moreover, having one admissions process in the spring could leave more time to recruit diversity in the fall....</p>
<p>If there is an opportunity to increase the legitimacy of the admissions process, it needs to be taken. If MIT and other institutions do not follow Harvard and Princetons lead, their efforts will have been wasted.</p>
<p>It has the capacity to change a lot of things in this business Its bold enough for other schools to really reconsider what theyre doing. I wish them so much luck in this, Marilee Jones, MIT dean of admissions, told The New York Times. Since MIT recognizes the prudence of the new policies, our admissions office should not allow apprehension about the risks involved to deter its implementation. Given MITs ability to attract students evidenced by a low admissions rate coupled with a high yield rate, we should have little to fear. ...</p>
<p>We should not set precedent by blindly following Harvard; however, in this case, we should follow their moral lead by eliminating our early action program.</p>
<p>MIT will probably keep Early Admissions; Marilee Jones is cited toward the end of the following AP article:</p>
<p>I wouldn't take that as the final word.</p>
<p>Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you have stated yours. Please spare us additional posts on this subject.</p>
<p>I will continue to respond to statistical claims that, IMHO, are wide of the mark.</p>
<p>Look, for now the best evidence we have as to whether or not EA is going to be dropped is the words of the admissions officers. If they say it's not in the near future, let's believe them. Anything else is simply speculation.</p>
<p>On my part, I think they will (and should) keep it. There are plenty of us that have our hearts set on MIT, and if we get in early we aren't going to bother filling out any other applications. For a lot of kids, MIT's EA is the equivalent of ED because if we get in we certainly are going to attend.</p>
<p>Just my opinion.</p>
<p>Please do not post poorly written opinion pieces from the notoriously misinformed Tech as empirical evidence :/</p>
<p>Whatev. Early Action is gody.</p>