<p>Recent stats reveal that MIT admits a higher percentage (16%) of RD applicants, than it does EA applicants (15%) -- one of the lowest, if not THE lowest, percentages of any major university (I think Caltech admitted about 32% of EA applicants). So now I'm wondering why anyone, other than those who are convinced that an early acceptance is in the bag, would bother applying early? Obviously, there are the usual reasons (e.g. why not try to get the whole unpleasant process over and done with), but I'm curious about what the AdCom is thinking.... Do EA applicants get any extra kudos for having indicated that MIT is their first choice?</p>
<p>the utility is that you apply earlier and get feedback earlier..
if you get deferred it's pretty much the same as if you had applyed RD through the regular process</p>
<p>well, why not? it's non-single choice and non-binding. it helps alleviate the stress in the spring I would imagine for the adcom. it also probably yields higher.</p>
<p>MIT admits a low percentage of EA applicants because they are committed to accepting no more than 30% of the class through EA. It's not that one pool is more or less anything that the other, it's that MIT has a strict limit on the number of people they're going to admit early.</p>
<p>I think it's nice for people to apply early, because they'll generally have a chance to be evaluated twice by the admissions officers (since most EA applicants are deferred to the RD pool), but applying early doesn't give an advantage. People should apply to MIT early because they want to apply to MIT early, not because they're playing some sort of game.</p>
<p>That is the party line indeed, Mollie - but as I have shown, it is a bit of a disingenuous claim in light of the huge number of "EA deferreds" who are subsequently admitted - at a rate substantially higher than the "true" RD applicants, and who, one assumes, matriculate at a higher rate than the "true" RD people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
who, one assumes, matriculate at a higher rate
[/quote]
[quote]
I will continue to respond to statistical claims that, IMHO, are wide of the mark.
[/quote]
You can't have it both ways, Byerly. Do you have statistical evidence of this "higher matriculation rate" you posit, or is it just another assumption?</p>
<p>Anecdotal data from my sons' school, which sends a remarkable number of students to MIT, shows that of the 7 EA admits two years ago, 2 matriculated (28% yield), while 5 of the 6 RD admits matriculated (83% yield). I wouldn't "assume" as you do.</p>
<p>I don't neccessarily disagree with your point mootmom, but those numbers are obviously statistically insignificant...</p>
<p>Of course, and I wouldn't claim they are. The anecdotal evidence I noted locally left me raising an eyebrow at the "assumption" stated about EA yield, so I added it to provide a basis for my query. I probably shouldn't have bothered, but it's too late to edit now, ah well.</p>
<p>I think MIT has always acknowledged that the yield rate is higher for early pool applicants than for RD applicants - for reasons which should be obvious.</p>
<p>See, for example: <a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N57/57admin.57n.html%5B/url%5D">http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N57/57admin.57n.html</a> - where Jones speaks of "a higher probable matriculation rate with the early group."</p>
<p>Some schools indeed do report the fraction of early applicants who matriculate. If MIT does so, however, I have never seen it.</p>
<p>So EA applicants are much more likely to be applying EA because MIT is their first choice school. Therefore, if they get in, there are more likely to matriculate.</p>
<p>And your point is?</p>
<p>Whether or not you agree with Byerly, Laura, his point is patently clear.</p>
<p>"Whether or not you agree with Byerly, Laura, his point is patently clear."</p>
<p>To make me wish I weren't a Harvard grad?</p>
<p>honestly, I've got no problem with Byerly. or anyone else on this board for that matter.</p>
<p>Shame, mathmom ....Harvard??? And you an MIT legacy!</p>
<p>OK, so I'm an idiot, forgive me. I really don't see how the fact that students are more likely to apply early to their top choice school has anything to do with....anything.</p>
<p>LOL, I was much more of a Harvard legacy. :) Though one grandfather who started at Harvard was kicked out and ended up at MIT.</p>
<p>According to MIT statistics,
12.7% get in EA (377/2965)
and 295 of deferred students get in RD (9.5% of early pool)
whereas only 811/8408 (9.6%) get in RD (excluding deferred students)</p>
<p>Where are you getting your stats from?
<a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml</a></p>
<p>Ultimate College Guide, 2006, The U.S. News Insider's Index, p. 103.<br>
The stats I cited were for the entering class of 2004... so, yeah, I know, I shoulda checked MIT's site too/instead.</p>
<p>Happyland:
295+377=672 students admitted who originally applied early action
295+811=1106 total students admitted
672/1106=60.1% EA students who eventually get accepted compared to all students who get accepted.</p>
<p>The overall acceptence rate is low for everyone, but more kids who got their applications in early get in. Frankly I don't know why Byerly has his knickers in a twist over this. The kids who apply EA to MIT have chosen not to apply EA or ED to any of the Ivy's or other well regarded LACs. So they are much more likely to have MIT as a real first choice and I think they are likely to be strong applicants. It's also possible that the deferrals beef up their applications. I think kids who know they want to go to MIT and who are good fits are likely to get their applications in early. So?</p>
<p>Not to disagree with your post, but to clarify, a total of 1483 were admitted. 45% of admitees were EA.</p>