<p>I'm not sure if there are statistics for this, but at least from the people I know, females have a much better chance at early action. It seems like most of the extremely qualified males I know get deferred.</p>
<p>I personally had a tough choice between MIT and Stanford, and went with Stanford in the end because of the smaller number of deferrals. Ironically, I got deferred. I'm trying to look back and see if I made the right choice, not that it makes any difference now.</p>
<p>Would you guys mind posting if you were accepted, and your gender?</p>
<p>Ah, so this is an entirely anecdotal hypothesis rather than a data-driven one.</p>
<p>MIT does not report the gender breakdown of each decision round, although you're welcome to analyze this year's and last year's decision threads. Still, using self-reported data is likely to give you skewed results.</p>
<p>For the record, I don't believe there's a significant gender disparity between EA and RD. But my opinion is just as data-poor as yours.</p>
<p>3, count them, 1, 2, 3! people got accepted from my school last night, 2 boys, I being one of them, and 1 girl. It was so cool today when were all in the same physics class celebrating!</p>
<p>My D is in her third year at MIT majoring in Course 6. (You'll soon come to know that that means!)</p>
<p>She had great credentials that we thought would get her in via EA but she was deferred and then made it in RD.</p>
<p>Her credentials included 2300 on the combined SAT I and 760 or better on all SAT II's.
3 Years of Science Research with a co-authorship on a technical paper in a major journal.
Rank in class 3 out of 200.
Average (weighted) 101.5.
Significant community service.
National Merit Scholar (not just a finalist - a winner!)</p>
<p>So in analyzing why she did not get in EA we talked to a lot of people, read a lot of blogs and formed our own conclusions.</p>
<p>There are a lot of factors that the Admissions Team takes into consideration when a candidate applies EA. Sometimes a really strong candidate will get deferred because the admissions team actually feels that the candidate will be a real competitor in the RA pool.</p>
<p>At first this doesn't seem to make sense but you have to look at what the Admissions Goals are for the school. Each year the school has admission goals by geography (domestic vs. international, regions of the world & regions of the country), "diversity" goals and "Legacy" applicants just to mention a few.</p>
<p>If a school's admissions team feels that the goals will be hard to achieve then they will use the EA process to preferentially take candidates that fall into "Targeted Areas" for their goals. A candidate who meets a targeted demographic might be accepted EA and a well qualified candidate might be deferred. The idea is that the accepted targeted EA candidate will increase the likelihood of achieving the "Admissions Goals" and a "deferred good candidate" still has a "Good Chance" in RD.</p>
<p>My D was heart broken when she didn't get in EA but she didn't lose hope. She felt all along that she was right for MIT and MIT was right for her and she did get in RD. Now after 2 and half years I can say that she was correct. MIT is an excellent fit for her. She loves it there and is having the time of her life. She has stayed on campus each January for "IAP" and has been lucky enough to find summer "UROPs" each year. She lives and breathes MIT.</p>
<p>"Each year the school has admission goals by geography (domestic vs. international, regions of the world & regions of the country), "diversity" goals and "Legacy" applicants just to mention a few."</p>
<p>I've been led to believe that MIT doesn't honor Legacy for admit purposes - anyone (MollieB) have evidence one way or the other?</p>
<p>@JTC591 - I too have legacy at MIT (3 generations, woohoo!), and I have been told that legacy does not affect admission decisions, but I wish it did :P</p>
<p>Nope, no legacy tip at MIT. (Too bad for my future hypothetical double legacy kids, right? :)) But there are a bunch of legacy kids at MIT -- it's certainly not a bad thing, it just doesn't help your application.</p>
<p>The official position of MIT is that legacy status does not provide a advantage in admission. Legacies that are rejected do supposedly get the benefit of a second read by the Dean of Admissions, although decisions are hardly ever reversed. It allows the Dean to deal with the irate parent calling in March seeking an explanation as to why his kid was rejected. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I do believe there is a substantial and real benefit for legacies at MIT. Very often, legacies grow up in an environment where technology plays a prominent role. They are encouraged to excel in math and science in high school and develop an interest by symbiosis. In the same manner that children of artists often develop artistic talents of their own, so do children of parents involved in science, medecine or engineering develop similar talents. </p>
<p>MIT cares very much about fit and as a legacy you have a significant advantage over an applicant who may know the school only through reputation. You have probably visited the school, sat in on classes, spoken to students. You may have met other alums through your parents. You may know about the dorm or greek culture, the psets, hacking, UROPs, IAP and all the things that make MIT special. But most of all, you may have that passion for innovation and creativity that the school seeks out among the applicants. You can't fake it through a list of ECs or even a perfect transcript ot test scores. You either have it or you don't!</p>
<p>As an EC, I interview applicants for MIT. I can generally guess within minutes if the student is a legacy just from the general conversation. I don't give applicants a better evaluation than other students just because they are legacies, but most of the time legacies really get what MIT is all about and they know what they can expect from the education. Sometimes, I feel I am interviewing a current MIT student. Since I don't have their grades or test scores, I don't know how they rank relative to the competition. I only know a greater number of them get in from my limited sample.</p>
<p>So in short, you don't get brownie points for being a legacy, but you may just be a more natural fit. And that counts for a lot!</p>
<p>BTW as far as the OPs question, the data we are given as ECs does not show a different pattern of admission in EA as opposed to RD. Slightly more boys are admitted in each round.</p>