To clarify: the book uses two different sets of data, which are discussed separately. One set of data consists of the complete, raw admissions dataset for 14 schools over a five year span. These schools provided their admissions data to the authors under the condition that they not be named. The other set of data is the survey data. Presumably the authors are aware of the limitations of survey data and have applied the usual techniques for mitigating those limitations.</p>
<p>The point is, the analysis in the book is not entirely based on self-reported data; they had complete data for at least some schools, which they could not name. Obviously, the discussion specific to MIT is based only on the survey data. I did not want to get into such subtleties, since the complete picture is enormously complicated, but since you brought it up, I wanted to respond.</p>
<p>^ And yet, there is still no statistical difference between the two pools, by your own admission. So what is your point on here? Convincing us all to go buy this book?</p>
<p>I have nothing to do with the book other than as a reader. My point is, I answered the question that the original poster asked. I think I gave a more complete answer than the standard “no, there is no difference.” I’m sorry if you can’t get past the fact that the answer is more complicated than a simple yes/no answer, but the question of EA bias deserves a more complete answer than simply “no.” If nothing else, presumably ivybound1 (judging by the handle) is interested in applying to more schools than just MIT. For other schools, the answer is a clear “yes, there is a strong bias.”</p>
<p>I don’t want to discuss all the possible cases or scenarios. That’s too complex. I just think that all of you here who insist on a straightforward unqualified 100% “no” with no dissension tolerated are way oversimplifying the answer.</p>
<p>You seem to be getting defensive about the idea that Admissions is a complex process - no one here, as far as I can tell, has denied this. Complexity isn’t the opposite of fairness or consistency with EA/RD pools, however, and the original question wasn’t about the complexity of Admissions. It’s certainly an interesting thing to talk about (and the officers do talk about it, again and again), but you’re acting as though a slight statistical difference from some surveys in some book you read is worth making a big thing out of.</p>
<p>Basically, I’m still not sure what you’re arguing here.</p>
<p>Two of the authors are Harvard professors. The publisher is Harvard University Press. One of the authors is a former admissions director. These are people who know the system and have relevant expertise. It’s not really fair to characterize this work as just some random book. And of course, as I just explained, not all of the conclusions are based on surveys.</p>
<p>You’re right, I don’t really have any more points to argue. I’ll leave it to future readers of this thread to judge on their own which side is being more defensive.</p>
<p>^ Possible? No, not if you’re following the rules. Stanford, for example, has restrictive early action - part of the agreement applying there is that you can’t apply to other schools early action. </p>
<p>But you can apply to all normal early action schools if you like. It won’t make a difference in your MIT application, but admissions at other schools run differently and it could be more favorable there.</p>
<p>I just reviewed the book The Early Admission Game by Avery and it does not actually claim that MIT early applicant’s get an advantage in admission. </p>
<p>One of the conclusions from the survey was actually the reverse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is actually consistent with my own experience interviewing students for admission to MIT for a number of years. I have met applicants who were admitted RD with lower stats than applicants who were straight out rejected EA, but I have never met an applicant who was admitted during EA with lower stats than any rejected candidates during RD: i.e. the bar is always set higher at EA than RD. </p>
<p>The Avery survey did seem to show that very high stat students did slightly better applying EA to MIT than those applying RD. That is also consistent with my own experience. A superlative candidate applying EA to MIT is typically part of a self-selecting pool of applicants who also show many of the other key characteristics MIT is looking for outside of high stats: extensive research experience or strong demonstrated interest in science and technology. The fit with MIT is often more obvious with EA candidates as can be seen from the higher yield from these applicants. I do interview a number of very academically qualified RD applicants, but more often than not their profile is less clearly a match for MIT than many of the early applicants. This shows up in the interview and also in the acceptance rate. Admission to MIT is more than just a number’s game: you can’t just make up a passion for science or technology. Either you have it or you don’t. Among those that do, many have MIT as their first choice and will apply EA rather than RD.</p>
<p>look here is the thing folks need to understand. the reason some schools give a “bump” to early action applicants is because it helps their yield number go up. this is also why some schools have binding early programs, or single choice, or whatever - because it helps their yield go up, and this looks good on the USN&WR rankings. </p>
<p>but we don’t do this. that’s why we have completely open early vs regular action. there is no reason for us to give students a preferential bump between the two cycles. if we were interested in giving students a bump we’d structure our application process in an entirely different way. </p>
<p>does that make sense?</p>
<p>e: i will agree with cellardweller - any discrepancy in the statistics is likely the result of some EA applicants being a very self-selecting group of highly prepared and motivated superlative students with excellent guidance support. but even then, the difference isn’t so big, and, more importantly, we don’t take or not take anyone in EA vs RA because of when they applied. the concept of a “bump” or “preference” is a very specific practice with regards to increasing yield numbers; we don’t do that.</p>
<p>^Well, for one, because it provides an advantage to the applicants – people who get in can potentially apply to fewer schools during the RD round, and people who are deferred have the opportunity to send in additional materials to support their cases.</p>
<p>From the perspective of the admissions office, it’s also useful to spread out the applications somewhat. It’s really logistically challenging for them to evaluate all the applications they do during the RD round in the time allotted, so it’s good to have some percentage of the applicant pool apply EA.</p>
<p>paronomasia: “Fair enough, but why have EA at all then?”
Personally, coming from an applicant admitted EA, it was really nice spreading out applications - some EA, some regular - and it was also excellent knowing a decision by mid-December. Just my $.02!</p>
<p>Emily, I agree! I guess what I was getting at was why someone would apply MIT EA over say Stanford SCEA and MIT RD, if EA and RD was going to turn out to be the same for MIT but Stanford SCEA would help. What was your reasoning? Besides the fact that MIT is the best. ;)</p>
<p>Hmmm, personally, I didn’t apply to Stanford, so that wasn’t a huge issue. One other school I applied to had SCEA, but 2 others had regular EA. I applied to all the EA’s I could, and I planned to apply to the SCEA as RD instead (didn’t end up doing that after hearing from MIT though!). So, I guess for me, I wanted to get as many apps out of the way early as I could. But if applying to Stanford SCEA gives you an advantage (I don’t have any information on this), then definitely consider that.</p>
One other school I applied to had SCEA, but 2 others had regular EA. I applied to all the EA’s I could, and I planned to apply to the SCEA as RD instead (didn’t end up doing that after hearing from MIT though!). So, I guess for me, I wanted to get as many apps out of the way early as I could. But if applying to Stanford SCEA gives you an advantage (I don’t have any information on this), then definitely consider that.</p>