MIT student paper: End Early Action Program (9.29.06)

Colleges & Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
61

<p>But I think the question that must be asked (and can't be answered) is this: would elimination of an early round cause a different set of people to be admitted to the school?</p>

<p>I mean, if you eliminate an early round, how does that solve the problem that Harvard claims to have -- less economic and ethnic diversity in the early pool? You still have the same total pool of people, and you still have to choose the same total number of them. I would predict that the same set of people (well, a set of people with statistically indistinguishable characteristics, both academic and economic/ethnic) will be admitted to Harvard next year. They'll just all be admitted at the same time.</p>

<p>I feel MIT's current approach is sensible, as they accept a limited number of people in the early pool, then are free to evaluate the strength of the RD pool -- if the RD pool were unusually strong, they would be admit lots of RD applicants and ~0 EA deferees. Since EA deferees are evaluated in a fresh light during RD (their applications get read again and summarized by a different reader; they are likely to be discussed in different committees), I think it's more appropriate to treat them like RD applicants than like EA applicants.</p>

<p>Perhaps at this point I am preaching to a choir on one side and brick walls on the other.</p>

62

<p>The problem is that the very existance of a relatively small early pool, disproportonately made up of wired-in folk, from which half the seats in the class are filled, discourages the less-connected from applying at all. They fear (rightly) that their odds of admission are very low.</p>

<p>MIT, apparently, acknowledges this consideration in theory, but finds it out-weighed by the institutional advantage provided by the ability to fill half the seats with high-yield early applicants.</p>

<p>See: <a href="http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060929/LIFESTYLE01/609290321/1031%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060929/LIFESTYLE01/609290321/1031&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

63

<p>The low admissions rate of any school might discourage a kid from applying... does that mean schools should accept every kid who gets in?</p>

<p>(Of course what really happens is that kids apply to 10+ schools to try to assure acceptance into at least one. The kid's likely gonna suck it up and apply, not be scared away.)</p>

64

<p>...so (in theory) more people apply, thus making the admission rate lower.</p>

<p>Ah, yes, this will encourage the masses.</p>

<p>Anyway, that doesn't address the point I was making -- if the EA deferees are reconsidered from scratch during the RD selection process, how does that make them EA admits? Doesn't that instead imply that, in the context of the RD pool, they were among the top 13%? </p>

<p>I just think it's a little disingenuous to call them EA admits when they weren't admitted EA. At schools which admit ~50% of the class outright during EA, only 50% of the seats remain, period. At MIT, 70% of the seats remain, and how they are filled depends on the relative strength of the EA deferred pool and the RD pool. MIT doesn't have to admit any of those deferred students, while schools which admit half of their class early have, well, already admitted half of their class early.</p>

65

<p>I guess we differ about who is being "disingenuous" here!</p>

<p>Deferring early admits and admitting them later at a rate far in excess that for "normal" applicants is a tried and true way of disguising the <em>real</em> extent to which a school relies on the early pool to goose the yield rate. The deferees have signalled in advance their willingness to enroll if admitted - that they are "people who actually want to come" as Laura gently put it.</p>

<p>This technique is used because "enrollment management" consultants have advised their clients that when the fraction of the seats filled from the small early pool exceeds a critical mass - usually seen as 50% - that potential applicants to the "regular" pool will be discouraged from doing so.</p>

66

<p>Wow Byerly, I wish I knew everyone's secret motives without trying the way you do. That must be pretty cool. I wouldn't have to consider reason, logic or stats, I'd just have to reach into my magic bag and say, "None of that matters, the point is that I KNOW what the admissions people are thinking, and you don't."</p>

67

<p>You're the one who claims to know what they're "thinking" Laura. According to you, they're oblivious to yield rates, rankings, SAT scores etc etc and only are giving tips to "people who actually want to come". How SWEET!</p>

68

<p>Yup, that's exactly what I said. MIT take all the applications they receive and use a magic formula to rank them by how badly the applicants want to come. They then take 500 names from the top of that list, plus the first 500 girls they can find so the even gender ratio can push up their US News Ranking, and then a couple of black kids just for kicks. The application itself is just meant to kill trees. We are the beavers, after all.</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Wait.</p>

<p>Scratch that. That's not what I said at all.</p>

<p>What I said was that it's possible that they would be more inclined to admit someone who was more likely to matriculate.</p>

<p>I never said that anyone was oblivious to SAT scores...</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>...but I thought it.</p>

<p><em>twilight zone music</em></p>

<p>Man you're good at that!</p>

69

<p>It is, of course, noteworthy that last year the admit rate was about 9.9% for males and about 26% for females. Could it be POSSIBLE that ...</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Wait.</p>

<p>Scratch that.</p>

<p>I better not speculate as to how this happened, or what they were "thinking".</p>

70

<p>Byerly, just curious, does Harvard publish legacy stats? Admissions to offspring of profs and deans? When Harvard really comes clean about that I'll have some respect for this EA change.</p>

71

<p>I am bored. Whenever I look into elite college boards, I always see Byerly’s posts. If Harvard dropped early decision, why your schools do not follow Harvard? If your schools have accomplished anything, they are really nothing without Harvard’s involvements. If you are upset or offended, you know that Byerly means well. He bashes all schools.</p>

<p>Is the spam driving your crazy? Well, I have a fun solution. Let’s me summarize his today’s messages. You will feel better knowing that you are not the only victims in the CC. LOL</p>

<p>October 2, 2006

[quote]
just announced: Brown alum Craig C. Mello '82 won the 2006 Nobel prize in medicine

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
Fortunate enough to get his PhD at Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Byerly's
[quote]
You will please note that all these schools do is give us vague spin about the "strength" of the early pool; they <em>never</em> provide detailed supporting stats about the quality of those in the early pool vs those in the RD pool - the applicants, the admits and the matriculants - and the admit rate and yield rate for those in each pool with similar qualifications. Most (giving MIT pros here for being honest) never fess up about how many high-yield early applicants are take after deferral, and * none* ever report the yield rate on these deferreds.

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
One might argue that the "Tufts Syndrome" approach - ie, giving an admissions tip to applicants who, based on computer analyisis or the application of some formula (ie, counting "contacts", campus visits, etc) are more likely to enroll should be beneath the stature of a school like MIT which allegedly "doesn't care about" yield.

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
MIT, apparently, acknowledges this consideration in theory, but finds it out-weighed by the institutional advantage provided by the ability to fill half the seats with high-yield early applicants.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley Alumnus Wins Nobel Prize (Class of '78)

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
He was an MIT Phd, and his co-winner was a Harvard PhD.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nobel Prize in Medicine
Fire, 47, of Stanford University, and Mello, 45, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, published their seminal work in a 1998 paper.

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
Yes. Lets not leave out Harvard. I think they have been doing fairly well in the Nobel department and otherwise when it comes to recognition - both in the case of alumni and in the case of staff. More National Academy members than any other college or university in America.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It would be fun to compile this data and fact every day.</p>

72

<p>t1388 you can add Duke onto the list of places that Byerly likes to make himself known.</p>

<p>Regarding a comment about Duke offering Merit Scholarships:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not THAT many -- at least in the case of Harvard -- since, according to the New York Times, more than 97% of common admits choose Cambridge over Durham. Of course, without the merit scholarships, it might not have been that close.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm just wondering why, if Byerly thinks Harvard is the best, he has to keep advertising that.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
I'm just wondering why, if Byerly thinks Harvard is the best, he has to keep advertising that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here's a theory: Byerly didn't get into Harvard. He's trying to make Harvard look bad by posing as an over the top student.</p>

74

<p>Bitter, aren't we mom? The ad hominem attack seems to be your specialty.</p>

<p>Lets hope "Mathson" is able to ride into MIT with the help of the EA edge; I understand why you have a stake in their retention of the program - for another year, at least.</p>

<p>"MIT (EA - probably his first choice)"</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
You will please note that all these schools do is give us vague spin about the "strength" of the early pool; they <em>never</em> provide detailed supporting stats about the quality of those in the early pool vs those in the RD pool - the applicants, the admits and the matriculants - and the admit rate and yield rate for those in each pool with similar qualifications.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is an important point. A scholar who could discover a major elite university at which applying early consistently does NOT confer an advantage would have a publishable result. It is acknowledged at some colleges that have early programs, and now at length acknowledged by some colleges that are abandoning early programs, that their programs conferred a substantial advantage on early applicants. The study that preceded the publication of the book The Early Admissions Game laid out the steps on how to do research on this issue. Anyone who wants to prove his college or her college (that is, the college at which he or she is president or dean of admissions) varies from this pattern can simply do what a scientist does and dig into the data and see what the data supports. </p>

<p>For readers of this thread unfamiliar with "enrollment management," I will note that a simple Google search shows that MIT has a college officer who is in charge of enrollment management at MIT. For a look at what a consulting firm in the business of enrollment management does, see the very informative Web site </p>

<p><a href="http://www.maguireassoc.com/services/financial_aid.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.maguireassoc.com/services/financial_aid.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>of a consulting firm in that business. There are many interesting Web pages on that site. </p>

<p>P.S. Note that for the moment I tentatively think that applying early may be less decisive at MIT than at any other major college, but I would like to see someone lay out the evidence on that issue, evidence that is privy to the admissions staff and their superiors at MIT, unless they voluntarily give access to that evidence to an independent researcher.</p>

76

<p>Nah, I'm not bitter. I agree that by the numbers it looks like EA provides an edge, but I'm not at all convinced it's an evil plot. Correlation does not equal causation and all that.</p>

<p>I'll be happy if my son gets in with or without the EA edge. I'll be happy if he ends up at any of the other schools on his list too. (Though I might miss the extra excuse to go to Boston.)</p>

<p>Here's a thought, he might get into Harvard (after all he's a legacy) and not MIT. What would/should he do then?</p>

77

<p>

Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks this post is ironic.</p>

78

<p>"Harvard's announcement that the university is ending its early admissions program is being heralded as the first step in restoring sanity to the college admissions process... </p>

<p>Early admissions programs ... benefit colleges because they increase a school's yield, the number of accepted students who attend the college. Admissions deans pay close attention to this number, because a high yield makes a school look hot and a low yield looks like the school has cooties...."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.toacorn.com/news/2006/1005/Schools/049.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.toacorn.com/news/2006/1005/Schools/049.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

79

<p>Look hot or cootie-infested... to whom?</p>

<p>I've known a lot of high school students applying to colleges, and I honestly can't think of a single one, other than people who hang out here on CC, who has ever inquired about a school's yield. The people who matter -- the students who will be applying and matriculating -- don't in large part care about the yield. They care about acceptance percentages, but not yield.</p>

<p>EDIT: Oh, now that you've added the link to your post, I think you should change your post's title. You've cited a piece in a local Thousand Oaks paper, written by a private college counselor, not a student and not a high school paper. It may be in her professional best interests to care about yield.</p>

80

<p>I tend to think the counsellor is concerned about the best interests of her prospective customers!</p>

<p>And you are quite wrong about what motivates top applicants, according to researchers.</p>

<p>See: "Higher Education As An Associative Good (Hansmann)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>... and "Winner Take All" (Frank)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0001s.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0001s.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>... and the introduction to the Laissez Faire rankings, where it was observed:</p>

<p>"The Laissez-Faire Ranking identifies quality with selectivity. It takes the historical and etymological view that a college is a "chosen company" and attempts to rank colleges by the membership they attract. It lets the best applicants point to the best colleges. Bright kids pay attention to selectivity when they look at colleges because they want to go where their peers are going. With their matriculation, they help compose a superior community, thereby confirming received opinion."</p>

<p><a href="http://collegeadmissions.tripod.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://collegeadmissions.tripod.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Finally, read the discussion and data HERE:</p>

<p><a href="http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>