<p>Cite me the page. </p>
<p>May I call your attention to Figure 5.13c on page 154, and table 5.1 on page 158, and Table 5.2 on page 160?</p>
<p>See also the discussion under THIS heading on page 164: </p>
<p>"Some Early Applicants Are Deferred And Admitted in the Regular Pool"</p>
<hr>
<p>I should also note that at the time this data was collected, MIT shared an open EA pool with Harvard, which created a different dynamic than exists currently.</p>
<p>Once MIT dumbs down the school by denying qualified applicants (including a large amount of asians) and admitting substandard applicants -expect these (currently listed) majors to expand rapidly at MIT</p>
<p>American studies; history; humanities; Latin American studies; literature; management; philosophy; political science; psychology; theater; womens studies; and writing.</p>
<p>MIT may as well rename itself BOSTON UNIVERSITY</p>
<p>Citation X: For real, chicks and Hispanics are leik omg sooooo dumb! lolz!</p>
<p>(END BLATANT SARCASM)</p>
<p>I don't know who you are, and I really don't care if you think you're being funny, but please take your inappropriate comments elsewhere.</p>
<p>I'm staying away from flamebait today. It's my new resolution.</p>
<p>School</a> enrollment by minority group
I only compared African-American students and Asian-American students by school, because it's midnight thirty and I'm tired.
School % African-American students % Asian-American students % overall students*
Engineering 63.8 53.5 57.5
Humanities, Arts, Social Sci 3.4 3.9 4.2
Sloan (management) 6.8 11.7 7.7
Science 20.3 28.9 28.9</p>
<p>Jessiehl has done the analysis for the most- and least-heavily female majors, so if you search through her posts I'm sure you'll find it. It's probably not what you'd expect.</p>
<p>*What I mean here is the percent of each group which is enrolled in the school -- so 63.8% of the African-American students at MIT are engineering majors and 28.9% of the Asian-American students at MIT are science majors.</p>
<p>I think science is the best indicator of those, and that only proves the point; it's really not flamebait - I don't understand why all of you insist on skewing the facts in regards to people like Byerly. The key point isn't that his facts are right/wrong anyway, it's that philosophically they just aren't a big deal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once MIT dumbs down the school by denying qualified applicants (including a large amount of asians) and admitting substandard applicants
[/quote]
This is flamebait. And who's skewing anything? For the subject of most of this thread, there's not even any data to skew. It's just speculation on top of speculation heaped upon a nice pile of speculation.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don't see why any one of these is the "best" indicator -- I think the numbers should be considered as a set.</p>
<p>It's a logical fallacy to reject an argument because of the harshness of its wording.</p>
<p>In the courses other than the raw sciences, there's relatively more convoluting factors.</p>
<p>The ocelot is by far the best animal; the goat is next.</p>
<p>It's a logical fallacy to cherry-pick a "best" data point because it fits your intended conclusion.</p>
<p>The conclusion it's possible to make from that data is that African-American students are relatively underrepresented in the School of Science and Sloan and overrepresented in the School of Engineering; Asian-American students are overrepresented in Sloan and underrepresented in the School of Engineering. Therefore, CITATION X's assertation that non-Asian minorities are disproportionately likely to choose majors in the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences or Sloan is not likely to be true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because somebody SAYS they have a different (presumably superior) early admissions policy doesn't mean that the differences are as significant as proclaimed, or that the policies aren't virtually identical under the skin, and motivated by the same institutional concerns. </p>
<p>But I can see it is uncomfortable for you to consider - let alone acknowledge - this. Peace.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is exactly what I mean. Any college that claims to have a different policy is perceived as being evasive. Anyone who claims that a certain college has a different policy is told that they don't have a strong enough stomach to face the "facts".</p>
<p>I don't doubt that EA helps increase yield, all I've said is that I do not find MIT's EA policies problematic. I see nothing wrong in wanting to increase yield (though I don't like "lock-in" options such as ED). After all, when someone is admitted to your school and doesn't come...a rejected applicant could have had that spot.</p>
<p>I do not believe that the policies are virtually identical. MIT's policy doesn't force anyone to choose a school before knowing how much aid they'll get, and it doesn't restrict applications to other schools. You may consider it "virtually identical" to policies which do one or both of these, but I do not.</p>
<p>Why should I be uncomfortable? Honestly, there are a lot of issues, in admissions and otherwise, that I care about a lot more than this. I'm just annoyed because of the underlying attitudes.</p>
<p>Most of what you say is irrelevant to my point; its not whether EA is good or bad, or institutionally justifiable - its that the claim made by some here that MIT relies on it less than other elites is not borne out by the facts. </p>
<p>Further, I find the explanation as to why a large number of early applicants are regularly accepted after deferral (at a higher rate than "regular" applicants) while the persistant claim s made that EA admissions are "capped at 30%" to be more than a little disingenuous.</p>
<p>How do you know what MIT does and does not rely on? Obviously a higher yield is good, just like Jessie said. If you can accept the people who actually want to come, so much the better for everyone involved. But in my experience, MIT is not obsessed with driving up their yield. Do you have any idea the kinds of issues we've had with crowding in the past? Not only that, but most of the admissions people at MIT think the US News Rankings are pointless. So no, I don't think we rely on the higher yield we might get from EA. You think we do. Can we agree to disagree? Maybe it's just me, but I find this entire thread absurd and pointless, to be perfectly honest. There are plenty of things worth arguing about and advocating for in admissions, trust me, and I think we could do better than arguing over how much MIT likes its own early admissions policies.</p>
<p>Again, beside the point. </p>
<p>MIT is entitled to "like" its policies to death, if it wishes. My only point, which seems to be meeting curious resistance from some here, is that MIT relies on its EA program more heavily than the admissions folk apparently want to admit.</p>
<p>Schools like to boost their yield rate for other reasons beyond the USNews rankings, of course. </p>
<p>Particularly when "diversity" is a goal, it is far more efficient to be able admit fewer people to fill each seat. </p>
<p>One way to do this is to have an early admissions policy; another is to send "likely letters"; another is to defer high-yield early applicants and admit them later; a fourth technique is to make expanded use of the waitlist.</p>
<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but MIT seems to practice the deferment of high-yield early applicants. If they're applying early to MIT, that means they gave up their chance for the SCEA or ED schools, marking them as interested candidates, meaning MIT can defer them safely and be assured of a relatively high yield of them in the RD round. Maybe explaining why MIT feels so safe accepting a lower percentage of EA than RD students despite the self-selecting pool.</p>
<p>Just my $0.02. Not trying to pick a fight or support anyone's side on this.</p>
<p>I believe you are correct. And adding together the early applicants take originally and from the deferred group, MIT fills just as many seats from the early pool as any other elite.</p>
<p>I just did the math, and I don't refute post 35. However, does that really mean that MIT depends on EA to.. what was the point? </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
obviously, a school with fairly precise "diversity" goals (including MIT) finds it easier - and more efficient - to achieve those goals if it can identify in advance the applicants most likely to enroll if admitted.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>diversify the class? (correct me if I'm wrong)
Isn't that what's behind our EA program?
So I thought enacting policies to increase diversity was a good thing!!!!!
Especially since it was so good when Harvard and Princeton eliminated their ED and SCEA programs as a strategy to increase diversity.</p>
<p>Also, does MIT's EA leave anyone at a disadvantage? I think this is a much more interesting and relevant question to waste three pages on. Well, admissions tries to visit many regions of the country, and there is no disadvantage to applying early. Also, no one is prevented from applying early - so even those disadvantaged public school kids who supposedly don't know their head from their butts could apply early and get in early! (not saying anything about public school kids.. i'm kinda one myself, and know many more)</p>
<p>Of COURSE there is no "disadvantage" to applying early - it doubles your odds of eventual admission. As to whether "no one is prevented from applying early" , this is a more questionable assertion - at least for kids in need of financial aid and/or from schools or from a geographic area less wired into the "early admissions game."</p>
<p>You don't have to be wired into the game to apply early though. People who need financial aid who live in the middle of nowhere are not stopped from applying and some even do apply early. It may not be easy as it is for other, more savvy people who've been thinking of applying early to college since middle school, but they can still apply as long as they get their app in in a timely fashion.</p>
<p>Oh come on, you make it sound like people who aren't super-rich can't read. I didn't have to hire a $2000 an hour admissions counselor to go to mit.edu, click on "undergraduate admissions," and read the information on their website about EA.</p>
<p>Earlier several of us claimed that the "overall" EA admit rate is higher because EA applicants are more likely to a) consider MIT their first choice school and b) be more excited about MIT and more likely to be a good "match," both of which would make MIT more likely to accept them, as we as discussed in the yield discussion. You specifically said that you don't dispute these claims (post #13).</p>
<p>Cause and effect are two different things. EA applicants have a higher admit rate because of factors that CAUSED them to apply EA, they do not have a higher admit rate as a RESULT of their early application. Therefore, there is no "game" as you see it. There's no need to be "wired" into this non-existant game in order to take advantage (in the RD round) of the factors that increase the EA admit rate (being a good match for MIT and considering it your first choice school).</p>
<p>And if you've been paying attention to anything so far, you'd know that financial aid is NOT a concern for EA applicants because it is NON-BINDING.</p>
<p>With all due respect, you make a number of leaps in logic there - including: (1) that there are no mere strategic advantages to applying early that are best understood by the wired-in; (2) that those who are not wired into the "game" are simply not MIT material; (3) that the large admissions tip given to early applicants has nothing to do with their presumed greater willingness to matriculate rather than their superior "qualifications" in other respects; and (4) that the need for "financial aid is not a concern for EA applicants because it is NON-BINDING."</p>