<p>MIT has an official policy of accepting no more than 30% of the class in order to "lessen the pressure for students to apply early". But wouldn't this drive academically talented students to apply to other top schools with much higher early acceptance rates? Last year Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Penn had acceptance rates of 22%, 28%, 24%, and 25% respectively.... as compared to MIT's meager 11%. I think it's going to turn students away from MIT in the long run, and as a result MIT's yield is going to severely decrease. Some ppl are quite bitter that MIT deferred them, one a UASMO'er AND IChO'er... He's probably going to end up matriculating somewhere else.</p>
<p>And yet, MIT has its lowest predicted RA rate ever, not to mention that every year for the past few years, the yield has only gone up.</p>
<p>And honestly, if people choose not to go to a certain school because of bitterness, that's representative of incredibly bad judgment... not what I'd want to see in my classmates or matriculating students.</p>
<p>I disagree with you. MIT's policy is a good one. College admissions is turning into too much of a game thanks to lessened EA standards at most schools. MIT is keepin it real. That's cuz we're hardcore like that.</p>
<p>This policy isn't new -- this is always the way MIT has treated EA admissions.</p>
<p>...not to mention that anyone who thinks he or she is too good to be deferred has another think coming when he or she gets to college...</p>
<p>Right but let's analyze this. 3500 applicants early last year, ~350-400 accepted. Another 300 accepted RD. That's like 600-700/3500... significantly higher than the 13-15% RD rate. In the end, isnt early still an advantage?</p>
<p>MIT students that are deferred are considered for RA with no regards to the EA round. That is, the fact that they applied early doesn't help them at all. To say early action gives you an admissions advantage because a higher percent of EA applicants get accepted is erroneous. A higher percent of EA applicants get accepted because the people applying EA are often more competitive than RA applicants... after all, they've done enough to feel comfortable applying two months early. </p>
<p>Whatever the reason for the EA group having a larger acceptance rate, it isn't because they applied early.</p>
<p>Mollie,
I think you missed an important point when you said disappointed students "think they are too good to be deferred". I will go out on a limb here and guess what son is thinking; he is too busy this week to say anything at all about being deferred. However, I think that if he is accepted this week to his other EA school (also a famous and well-respected university), he will jump at the chance to go where he is considered first-rate, not a second-stringer. Assuming MIT deferred some really desirable students (maybe that isn't true), then they do indeed take a chance on losing some of them. I'm not complaining about their approach, but I do tire of everyone saying a deferral from MIT "isn't the same as a rejection". The fact is, son has already proved himself in the classroom (he is taking four university classes this year because his school is out of courses that interest him), and in his in-school and out-of-school activities. He is over and done with standardized tests (and they are very good). There is nothing else to say that will make him look any better. If what he showed MIT wasn't what they were looking for, then that is a rejection. So, you really shouldn't be sarcastic about him preferring to go to a school that likes what it sees the first time around, assuming that comes to pass.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you missed an important point when you said disappointed students "think they are too good to be deferred". I will go out on a limb here and guess what son is thinking; he is too busy this week to say anything at all about being deferred. However, I think that if he is accepted this week to his other EA school (also a famous and well-respected university), he will jump at the chance to go where he is considered first-rate, not a second-stringer. Assuming MIT deferred some really desirable students (maybe that isn't true), then they do indeed take a chance on losing some of them. I'm not complaining about their approach, but I do tire of everyone saying a deferral from MIT "isn't the same as a rejection". The fact is, son has already proved himself in the classroom<a href="he%20is%20taking%20four%20university%20classes%20this%20year%20because%20his%20school%20is%20out%20of%20courses%20that%20interest%20him">/b</a>, and in his in-school and out-of-school activities. He is over and done with **standardized tests<a href="and%20they%20are%20very%20good">/b</a>. **There is nothing else to say that will make him look any better. If what he showed MIT wasn't what they were looking for, then that is a rejection. So, you really shouldn't be sarcastic about him preferring to go to a school that likes what it sees the first time around, assuming that comes to pass.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I understand this was addressed to Mollie but being that it's still in a public thread instead of a PM box, I'm taking it as an invitation for discussion. He had good grades and good SAT scores, which means he was numerically qualified for MIT. Just like 70% of the applicants. The admission decision isn't based on your performance in the classroom or in the three hours you take a test. The comment that worries me the most is the "There is nothing else to say that will make him look any better." The truth is that it comes down to the match.... I don't know why people refuse to believe me when I say the single most important part of the application is the essays.</p>
<p>I addressed this topic in an earlier post [url="<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3315612&postcount=28%22%5Dhere%5B/url">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3315612&postcount=28"]here[/url</a>]. Just because your son didn't get in early does NOT mean he isn't numerically qualified, or that he is a bad fit at MIT. It does mean the people who got in early are "better" than him, or that MIT perceives them to be. The early action programs lets as many students know they're accepted early as possible... but there's a cap on the number they can accept.</p>
<p>Hopefully, if your son is accepted at MIT, he will do the intelligent thing and weigh both of his options in terms of what they offer him, not where he feels the most loved or wanted, but where he feels he fits and belongs.</p>
<p>/derail</p>
<p>We definitely don't think of deferred EA applicants who are admitted in RA as "second-stringers." We simply accept some students now and others later - it's all part of the same process. </p>
<p>While I definitely appreciate midmo's argument, I'd encourage applicants to not base their college choice on which school appears to "like them best" (although I understand that this can be emotionally difficult). Remember that professors, current students, staff, etc have no idea whether you were admitted EA, RA, or off the waitlist; once the process is complete, you're just an "admitted student" to anyone here who matters.</p>
<p>See where you're accepted, go to the preview weekends in April, and choose based on your experiences there. Whether you are accepted in EA versus RA should not play a role in your college choice.</p>
<p>Olo you beat me to it! :-)</p>
<p>Harvard and Princeton have eliminated Early Action/Decision starting next year, so there's no worries there. It looks like MIT, CalTech, and several others are very interested to see how this affects the college admissions atmosphere, so in a few years MIT may not need to worry since it and most of the other top colleges in the nation will end up with an early admissions rate of 0%.</p>
<p>Olo, instead of getting defensive, try reading what I wrote. My comment to Mollie--and anyone else reading the thread--is that some kids will choose to go elsewhere rather than sit around waiting to hear about whether the deferral becomes a rejection. Mollie interpreted the phenomenom as arrogance. I disputed that, pointing out that some students will prefer to attend a school that considers them a perfect fit, not a <em>possible</em> fit, depending on who else shows up at the RD party. Why do you assume that son and I expected an evaluation based only on classroom performance? I said nothing to make you think that. What I did say was that his application is complete as it stands; the adcom can assume that his grades this semester will be on a par with those since the 9th grade, since his performance has been consistent. His extra-currics are the same he has followed since the 6th grade, in most cases; since the 10th in the major time-consumer. He isn't going to rewrite the essays. (I never read them or talked with him about them, so maybe he should, but it is his game, not mine.) The POINT, Olo, is that he already showed MIT who and what he is. There is no more to see at RD than there is now. He may well choose to wait even if he is admitted to his other EA, or he may not. It is his decision. </p>
<p>By the way, a little life lesson for you, free of charge: Where--and with whom--one feels the "most loved and wanted" is usually the same place where one "fits and belongs". (See your last line.)</p>
<p>Ack, I just noted a horrific typo in my first post, but I assume most of you have figured it out.</p>
<p>I wasn't being defensive or even defending anyone. Who knows? MIT may consider your son a perfect fit. If you read the other post I linked to, you'd know there are more perfect fits than applicants. If your son honestly picks what school he attends because of this, it makes me sad. You clarify in your most recent point that this may not even be a factor for him. it seems that this actually bothers you more than it does him, in which case I ask you to stop being defensive about your son.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, a little life lesson for you, free of charge: Where--and with whom--one feels the "most loved and wanted" is usually the same place where one "fits and belongs". (See your last line.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, I've already learned the hard way that just because somewhere (someone...) <em>really</em> loves you and <em>really</em> needs you does not mean that at (with) that place (person) is where you should be. In fact, oftentimes it reflects an insecurity on their part, when in reality you would be much happier at (with) another place (person). A match works two ways, by definition.</p>
<p>Lesson for you, free of charge: don't insert "life lessons" into conversations simply because you feel like it will empower your point, especially if those lessons are wrong.</p>
<p>Olo, I'm going to annoy you by giving you another life lesson: you need to get a better sense of humor. Or maybe I do, since my little jokes fall flat. Could I be John Kerry in disquise?</p>
<p>You have a good point about my taking the deferral harder than he has. What you are seeing is the defensive mama bear routine. OTOH, he is very busy studying for two university finals, preparing a big AP lit paper and several hs tests and quizzes, all due within the next couple of days. So, if he has any deeply felt feelings about the subject of deferral, they are on hold. I'm simply predicting, based on 17 years of observation. Also, based on the fact that the other EA school is very dear to his heart. If he is accepted, there will be a strong emotional force to contend with: get this whole application process over with so I can enjoy this year, or wait to decide for another several months. If that were not a factor is his thinking, he wouldn't have applied EA anywhere, in the first place. </p>
<p>This thread was started by someone questioning the ultimate wisdom of strictly limiting the number of EA acceptances. I jumped in because I was thinking about the same thing. I still agree with the OP: MIT may lose more than they gain. Just an opinion, from a defensive mama bear.</p>
<p>When I mentioned arrogance, I was mentioning it in the specific context of the OP's post -- that several people were "bitter", with the implication being that they were surprised and angry to be deferred because they were Olympiad vets. I doubt the majority of EA deferred students are bitter in the way the OP describes -- most of them are probably kind of upset and sad. I don't think it's unreasonable to be upset if one is deferred, but I do think it's a little unreasonable to be bitter and specifically angry with a school.</p>
<p>To be honest, from what I've seen, I can comfortably opine that the opinions of many of the dejected EA deferees will change in March. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance-reducing going on right now, but not all of it will be permanent.</p>
<p>EDIT: I should also mention that Olo and several other posters here were EA applicants who were deferred and ultimately accepted in the regular round, but still chose to attend MIT, even over other great options.</p>
<p>oh dont be silly, come april or may and it's time to decide, most of these kids won't even remember that they were deferred to begin with :P</p>
<p>Some, perhaps most, of them will look past the deferral, but I also think that the deferred kids won't have the extra attachment to MIT that the early-accepted ones do. So even though the early-admits are presumably a stronger pool and will have better alternatives, I predict that the yield will be lower on the deferreds than on the early accepteds, anyone want to predict the opposite?</p>
<p>Especially if there are chat rooms! :)</p>
<p>Byerly's contention was that EA admits have a higher yield than RD admits, even if they are deferred and later accepted. I don't have any data to confirm or refute that.</p>
<p>Well, if they would increase the number or rejections at least us deferred people can be more sure of our chances. Right now we're still in wonderland. If some of us were outright rejected, we can move on instead of still thinking about MIT, and those deferred would be sure that their deference meant more.</p>