<p>I just reviewed the book The Early Admission Game by Avery and it does not actually claim that MIT early applicant’s get an advantage in admission. </p>
<p>One of the conclusions from the survey was actually the reverse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is actually consistent with my own experience interviewing students for admission to MIT for a number of years. I have met applicants who were admitted RD with lower stats than applicants who were straight out rejected EA, but I have never met an applicant who was admitted during EA with lower stats than any rejected candidates during RD: i.e. the bar is always set higher at EA than RD. </p>
<p>The Avery survey did seem to show that very high stat students did slightly better applying EA to MIT than those applying RD. That is also consistent with my own experience. A superlative candidate applying EA to MIT is typically part of a self-selecting pool of applicants who also show many of the other key characteristics MIT is looking for outside of high stats: extensive research experience or strong demonstrated interest in science and technology. The fit with MIT is often more obvious with EA candidates as can be seen from the higher yield from these applicants. I do interview a number of very academically qualified RD applicants, but more often than not their profile is less clearly a match for MIT than many of the early applicants. This shows up in the interview and also in the acceptance rate. Admission to MIT is more than just a number’s game: you can’t just make up a passion for science or technology. Either you have it or you don’t. Among those that do, many have MIT as their first choice and will apply EA rather than RD.</p>