<p>I'm a rising senior trying to decide where to apply early, and I'm having trouble figuring out whether SCEA (like at harvard, princeton, and stanford) gives you enough of a boost to justify applying SCEA at one of those places over early action at mit.</p>
<p>MIT is my tentative first choice, but am I failing to "maximize" my chances overall by not applying SCEA at H P or S? Is non-restrictive early action just an early notification or is there a real admissions boost? I know the percentages accepted are very different for EA and regular at MIT, but is that just a result of self-selection of people who have MIT as a first chioce?</p>
<p>I guess this may be sort of unquantifiable, but thanks for the help!</p>
<p>If MIT is your first choice, apply EA there. The (SC)EA pool will be extremely competitive at any of those schools. If there is any boost, you want it from your first choice school.</p>
<p>Some schools that are ED give a ‘boost’ to students that apply because they are assured to attend if admitted (except for inadequate FA). </p>
<p>EA is quite different, there is no ‘boost’, even though the acceptance rates lead many to believe there is an advantage. Students accepted in the EA round are outstanding and would have been chosen in ANY applicant pool. This gives the school an extra few months to woo students who will most likely be accepted to other highly selective colleges if they chose to apply. There is absolutely no benefit to the school to accept a competitive but not exceptional applicant, they can just be deferred to the RD round and compared to the larger pool of applicants. Read what Y says:</p>
<p>So then there’s no difference between restrictive and non-restrictive early action? Then why do they bother with restrictive at all if the colleges don’t particularly care about your “loyalty” or whatever to them ?</p>
<p>^Restrictive Early Action a college an advantage when that college knows that it is the only school you have been accepted to. Schools with non-restrictive EA don’t have the same assurance.</p>
<p>For the class of 2014, there was NO statistical boost at MIT, as both EA and RD were at around 10 percent. Stanford and Yale are about 14 percent SCEA and about 6 percent in the RD rounds. The last admission cycle showed a bit more “boost” with 12 versus 9 percent. Nobody can predict what MIT will do next year.</p>
<p>The “boost” is really a misnomer. A normal reach applicant, who might get in for RD, stands little chance of being accepted in an early pool of the ultra-competitive. In fact, Harvard’s EA is somewhat like its “likely-letter” program–its method of giving the best of applicants more time, and incentive, to choose Harvard.</p>