<p>The Tech vs. The New York Times…</p>
<p>I’m kind of sick of the topic, but having thought of this point I felt obligated to make it.</p>
<p>International applicants can’t apply EA, meaning that neither the EA admits nor the EA deferrals have any internationals.
International applicants have a much lower admit rate than domestic applicants.
There are a lot of international applicants.</p>
<p>I assume that the above facts bring down the admit rate for those who applied RA compared to those who were deferred EA and ended up in the RA pool.</p>
<p>My argument was that the advantages gained by EA are not strategic, based on the points I laid out in the beginning of the post. If you disagree, you disagree, but that doesn’t make my logic flawed. Or, at the very least, it doesn’t actually add any logical argument to the debate.</p>
<p>I also said that there IS NO GAME, so I can’t even imagine what you’re talking about in point 2. If you’re suggesting that I think the super-rich and well-connected aren’t MIT material, you’ve really missed the mark. You will NEVER hear me say such a thing.</p>
<p>And your point #3 is just plain wrong, I actually said that MIT is more likely to admit applicants who consider MIT their first choice and are more likely to matriculate, for obvious reasons that we discussed earlier in the thread. What you seem adamant about ignoring is the fact that you can apply RD, still make it clear that MIT is your first choice, and still reap the “advantage” from it.</p>
<p>As for point #4, perhaps I should clarify: of course EA applicants may be in need of financial aid, what I meant was that their financial need does not deter them from applying EA because the program is non-binding, so they have a chance to compare financial aid packages before matriculating.</p>
<p>On #4 (ignoring the other points) that’s what EA people like to say (by way of proving that they are more “moral” than ED people), but such stats as have been released tend to indicate that in the eyes of many potential applicants the difference is not that great.</p>
<p>What stats? Cite them please. Thanks.</p>
<p>Byerly is losing this argument very badly (and I have no dog in the fight – if anything, I dislike EA). </p>
<p>Byerly says that the twice as great rate of admission for EA applicants suggests they have an easier time getting in. The burden of proof is on Byerly to show this. As it stands, there is no evidence to suggest that, at MIT, this is due to an ‘advantage’ as opposed to the greater strength of the EA pool.</p>
<p>Also, who thinks that if MIT had just killed EA and Harvard still had it, Byerly would be singing its praises?</p>
<p>Haha, my eyes are bleary after reading too many papers today (being a grad student ROCKS), and I read Ben’s last line above as “Who thinks that if MIT had just killed Harvard…”</p>
<p>For the record, I think it’s stretching the bounds of credulity to suggest that places like MIT (and Harvard/Caltech/Stanford/other great schools with EA programs) admit EA students <em>because</em> they’re statistically slightly more likely to matriculate at the school. To be honest, I don’t think schools are thinking about yield on a student-by-student basis – it seems somewhat futile to me.</p>
<p>I have <em>never</em> “sung the praises” of EA, or SCEA or ED, and have uniformly viewed all these devices as scams that the courts should outlaw as an illegal restraint of trade.</p>
<p>I specifically denounced SCEA as a phony “reform” when HYS adopted it… </p>
<p>That any school should have “exclusive negotiating rights” to 17 year old college applicants - even for a limited period is, and always has been, outrageous. </p>
<p>I was disgusted when Harvard helped bail out Yale by moving to SCEA along with Stanford, and said so repeatedly, here and elsewhere, when they did so. So get that through your skull, Ben.</p>
<p>I was among those who urged Harvard to disregard all such dubious deals, and to admit anybody who they wanted, who was qualified and who applied, despite any EA or ED school’s claim of exclusive negotiating rights or ownership.</p>
<p>For about 2 weeks in 2002, there was some possibility that Harvard would take this stance, and if they had done so then, I still believe the whole “early admissions game” would have come tumbling down like a house of cards.</p>
<p>And don’t give me that horse manure about the “burden of proof” Ben. 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.</p>
<p>The “Early Admissions Game” demonstrated convincingly that any and all admissions officers - at EVERY school - who deny that early admits receive - and always <em>have</em> received - an admissions edge are - to be charitable - fibbing.</p>
<p>Just as an aside, do any of you think any of the anti-EA arguments being put forth here will do anything whatsoever to convince a single potential EA applicant not to apply early? Or the Admissions staff of any university to change their policies? Lots of electrons being spun, but the choirs are singing over each other, and nobody really cares. I get the sense at this point that it’s sort of an argument to see who can argue better. Is everyone having fun?</p>
<p>You miss the ploint.</p>
<p>Of COURSE people should apply early - somewhere … ANYwhere.</p>
<p>In light of the enormous admissions edge given to the wired-in early applicants, any guidance counsellor who doesn’t make virtually every kid aspiring to an elite apply early should be sued for educational malpractice.</p>
<p>Once you see the difference between the admit rate for the early people - both initially and from the deferred pool - and the admit rate for the poor schlumps in the RD pool, the unavoidable conclusion is GO EARLY.</p>
<p>Byerly- I completely agree. Please allow me to take back anything I ever said to the contrary. Early Action of ANY form, regardless of its actual policies, standards, statistics, attempts made to make admissions less stressful on applicants, or reality itself, will soon utterly destroy the very fabric upon which this great country was built.</p>
<p>Only Satan himself could have created such a concept.</p>
<p>Thank you for your understanding, Laura.</p>
<p>“ran into the devil, babe, he loaned me 20 bills…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or herself, which I personally think is much more likely…</p>
<p>Haha, I’m applying MIT/Caltech early. The truth is I still feel more confident doing so despite whatever MIT says. They openly admit interviews will help your chance (I believe the exact wording was 17% of intervied candidates are accepted compared to 6% of non-interviewed), and EA offers more, less harried interviews when the interviewer hasn’t become weary of the whole process yet. Even if the benefit is unintentional, it’s still there. Also, MIT always talks about fit. Obviously a candidate that puts MIT above the Ivies is obviously showing that he/she is more interested in MIT and thus more likely to “fit,” whatever that means.</p>
<p>“Fit” in this instance is a code word for higher yield rate.</p>
<p>Hah! Wow, thanks for the laugh this morning, it was a good pick-me-up for a Monday morning. Have you thought about stand-up as an avocation? In the Steven Wright manner, of course.</p>
<p>Ben, I haven’t seen any ocelots lately, but they sure are sleek.</p>
<p>““Fit” in this instance is a code word for higher yield rate.”</p>
<p>You think they should accept more kids who don’t want to come?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>correlation != causation.</p>