<p>Is it single choice or not???</p>
<p>Not as far as I know.</p>
<p>No, MIT EA is not single choice. You may apply to other schools concurrent with an MIT EA application, subject to any restrictions stated by those other schools.</p>
<p>Be careful, because MIT will know where else you applied (unless the school is not at all competitive with MIT) and it may bring into question...your motivation to attend MIT vs. just hunting for a good acceptance.</p>
<p>Actually, the MIT adcom has stated that they don't know where else you apply, and it won't affect your admission at all. I would imagine there are a significant number of, say, MIT/Caltech cross-applicants, not to mention a slew of EA institutes.</p>
<p>EA is not a tool for getting in, it's a tool for knowing early. There's nothing wrong with that.</p>
<p>Doesn't matter in the slightest Dad.</p>
<p>There were 7 students from my son's senior class last year who were accepted EA, and pretty much every one of them had also applied EA to other equally excellent schools. MIT does not gauge your interest based on applying EA. You just get your answer earlier (unless you're deferred to the RD pool.)</p>
<p>(Ooops! Sorry Olo/Timur, we cross-posted. ;) )</p>
<p>All I know is legacy for this sort of thing. If they have recently lossened up, fine. Otherwise...beware. It only makes sense afterall, because remember...part of your fit at MIT is your desire to be there, not just to be one who can say they got accepted there.</p>
<p>An example of who they might share info with....from LAISSEZ-FAIRE PRINCIPLES, 1999-2000
Third Annual Edition, Revised</p>
<p>"Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1861, private, $31900; shares
applicants most often with Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Cornell
Univ.; 8676 applied, 22% accepted, 55% yield, middle half scored 1400-1560
SAT, 95% in top tenth of class, 103 external National Merit Scholars (9.9%
of class), 90% not from Massachusetts, 97% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 6th among national universities."</p>
<p>They must have recently "loosened up" then. It truly does not matter anymore. Your fit at MIT is (no longer) judged by whether you might also fit somewhere else. Visit some of the threads here or on the Caltech forum where Ben Golub and benjones discuss their cross-admits etc. They know they'll both accept some of the same students, and do not leave someone out of the pool because they're already wet. (Or something. That analogy didn't work, sorry. :) )</p>
<p>This is not the MIT of my day, or even of 10 years ago.</p>
<p>Yes, right, so? Schools all make lists of cross-admits and cross-applicants now. DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR ADMISSIONS CHANCES.</p>
<p>I'm willing to go out on a limb on this one. Maybe benjones will sign in someday and validate my limb-going. ;)</p>
<p>OK fine. If I was looking over the top 200 EA candidates and I had to cut 20 out of the bottom 30 or so, I would look to motivation (everything else being equal) and I can't believe it plain doesn't matter AT ALL. Sorry...</p>
<p>I might be able to help with this one, actually.</p>
<p>The cross-admit numbers are determined after acceptance -- they send a survey to accepted students asking where else they applied, and whether they were accepted/waitlisted/rejected from those places. This data is used to calculate cross-admit numbers and percentage of students who choose one school over another.</p>
<p>So MIT doesn't know where else you've applied until after you've already been accepted.</p>
<p>In a perfect world...</p>
<p>I used to be cynical about the college application and acceptance process as I watched my son proceed through it last year. Then I met, online and in person, many of the MIT admissions folks. They are as decent a group of people as I have ever met, whose personal and group integrity I am highly impressed with. I am no longer cynical about this process, at least where MIT is concerned.</p>
<p>After the initial "could you survive and thrive here?" hurdles are passed, what seemes to matter for an applicant is whether your passions and how you demonstrate, describe, and live them, are a fit with the MIT mission, methods, and incoming class. Not where else you've applied for admission.</p>
<p>I believe it plain doesn't matter AT ALL.</p>
<p>I would in no way question the integrity of the admissions office personnel or the MIT process as a whole. I just know that there are secrets in the process....not necessarily a bad thing however.</p>
<p>Of course they will give your overall fit to the institute priority over where else you are hunting, but your just kidding yourself if you think they totally ignore where else you apply, especially if it is a large list!</p>
<p>I shall continue to kid myself, then. Personal experience and knowledge of the experience of others tells me this is a non-factor in admissions, EA or otherwise. Your Mileage May Vary.</p>
<p>I agree with MM. Efforts to raise yield are implemented entirely post-admission (phone calls, campus preview weekend). They don't include not admitting people who applied to other schools.</p>
<p>Check out the acceptance rate vs. SAT score given in [url=<a href="https://www.fafsa.com/downloads/Research_Reports/college_preferences.pdf%5Dthis">https://www.fafsa.com/downloads/Research_Reports/college_preferences.pdf]this</a> pdf<a href="page%209">/url</a> -- the probability of an MIT applicant's admission rises smoothly given higher and higher SAT scores, in contrast to Princeton's admissions, where students around the 93rd percentile are admitted at a higher rate than those around the 98th percentile. The conclusion the authors of the study draw is that Princeton is practicting selective admissions (rejecting those they deem likely to reject them), while MIT is not.</p>
<p>Exactly, who needs to reject people to raise yield when you have Central Meetings, CPW, and the MITBlogs?</p>
<p>Don't forget we should reference the general MIT applicant audience unless specified otherwise in our posts.</p>
<p>Some folks are just so good, that they will get accepted every where they apply no matter how many they apply to.</p>
<p>If you are in the middle 50% all around, motivation/passion is going to be more of a factor. OK...I'm off this thread for good!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't forget we should reference the general MIT applicant audience unless specified otherwise in our posts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree completely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some folks are just so good, that they will get accepted every where they apply no matter how many they apply to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's where you're wrong. MIT rejects plenty of applicants who are valedictorians with perfect SAT scores. Neither of these things guarentees acceptance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are in the middle 50% all around, motivation/passion is going to be more of a factor. OK...I'm off this thread for good!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong again. If you are anywhere within the 100% of applicants, passion is going to be more of a factor. Being a match for the school supercedes having good numbers. You can get into MIT without being in the top quarter, without having 1400 SATs, and without being a URM (I know of an '09er that did). You can't get in without being passionate.</p>
<p>We're busy enough without trying to figure out where else 10,500 people are applying. :-) Honestly, we have no idea. Think what you wish, but I speak the truth.</p>
<p>As for "motivation" we are neither single choice nor binding, so applying EA to MIT tells us nothing of your motivation. Perhaps you just wanted to get an app out of the way.</p>
<p>Olo said:
[quote]
If you are anywhere within the 100% of applicants, passion is going to be more of a factor. Being a match for the school supercedes having good numbers. You can get into MIT without being in the top quarter, without having 1400 SATs, and without being a URM (I know of an '09er that did). You can't get in without being passionate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Olo (Timur?), well-said, but I think I want to qualify it just a bit. For my own sake more than anything. For seventeen-eighteen year olds, I think "passion" is really a nebulous word. I don't equate my love of math/science to a passion (don't get me wrong - I'm a pretty big math/science nerd), but passion is far too strong a word to be throwing around with college applications. Sure, I think some candidates have it (some have a lot of it... that is if passion can be quantitified... can it?), but for the most part, most applicants are just kids with potential. </p>
<p>But I agree with the gist with what you are saying. People get into MIT because they want to explore a passion (or make a new one). </p>
<p>Right, so what was the point of this post? Curses!</p>