What would help my chances more? Stanford SCEA or Caltech/MIT EA?

[o0CrazyGlue0o]

<p>Ive looked at EA vs RD rates for stanford, caltech, and MIT to see where I should apply early. If I can get into any of those three schools, ill be really happy, so im just trying to figure out where applying early would give me the best chance at getting in. Caltechs EA rate this year was very high at 36%, but i noticed from a data set a few years ago that it was much lower, 19% or something like that if i remember correctly. Stanford’s SCEA rate stays around most of the time 20%, right? MIT’s EA stays pretty close to the RD rate, but I heard a lot of people get deferred. Ive heard caltech is the most score-based out of the three, and since scores are my strongest point, maybe I have the best chance there early?</p>

[korinfox]

<p>I think calling any of the three, Stanford, Caltech, or MIT scores-based is a misnomer. It might be that Caltech is the most scores-based because they will “punish” you the most for not having top SATs, but by no means will perfect or near perfect scores get you in.</p>

<p>If you’re really equally fine with getting into any of the three, your best “chance” would be applying EA to both Caltech and MIT because that’s 2 schools vs. only 1 of SCEA Stanford. Otherwise just apply early to the school you like the most.</p>

<p>It’s worth looking up statements from admissions officers to see if applying to Stanford SCEA actually gives you an edge just because you apply SCEA, and not because “the people who apply early tend to be stronger candidates” and the like, same with Caltech and MIT EA.</p>

[MorsVenit]

<p>If you have very high schores, EA to Caltech and MIT is likely to yeild some positive result. If you have excellent grades, ECs, and scores, then you might try Stanford, but even then Stanford is less predictable.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>You must also take into consideration that Caltech and MIT have a pretty self selected applicant pool.</p>

<p>there were 2 recent threads on the parents forum: Perfect 4000 or 4800</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=227700&page=2[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=227700&page=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and</p>

<p>Engineering back door to elite colleges admissions </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=226442[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=226442&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>both threads raise good points about scores and specialty schools.</p>

<p>On post that as really great came from molliebatmit (a recent MIT grad now in a PhD program at Harvard) in regards to scores. She quoted an entry from MIT admissions officer Matt McGann’s blog <a href=“http://matt.mitblogs.com/archives/2004/11/whats_the_big_d.html[/url]”>http://matt.mitblogs.com/archives/2004/11/whats_the_big_d.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>which states:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>People make a big deal about test scores. No one seems to believe me when I tell them that when I’m reading an application, I just glance at the test scores to get a sense of them before moving on to the more important parts of the application – that is, who you are. But here’s an example. So, I’m reading this application of a student, a pretty strong student, who’s definitely overcome some challenges recently. I come to the second to last piece in the folder, which is the guidance counselor letter (the last piece is the interview report). The GC makes a big deal of the student’s “scoring the magic 1600 on the SAT.” Now, when I started the case, I mentally noted to myself, “Okay, this student has scores that are fine, let’s move on,” but it didn’t really make an impact on me that the student had “the magic 1600.” Yes, scoring a 1600 is something that you, your school, your parents, and your guidance counselor can be very proud of. But it’s not something I’m going to bust out my highlighter for, circle in big red pen, make it the focus of your case. In fact, I don’t think I have ever in my summary of a student used high standardized scores as an argument to admit that student.</p>

<p>I wanted to share this with you because this case was one concrete example of just how little we care about the small differences in competitive test scores. A student with “the magic 1600” is not implicitly better to us than a student with “the spellbinding 1400.” Scores are one tool we use to help us in admissions. And yes, your grades and test scores (especially your grades) are important. But as I have said in the past, what ultimately really matters to us is who you are, what qualities you bring to the table. We want people who are academically curious and passionate, people who will bring their various talents to MIT and share them with others, people who will be good roommates, good mentors, good friends. We do not admit test scores. We admit people.</p>

<p>Let me tell you one more story that I often relay. I was doing a regional reception in a city a few years back, and afterwards a student – we’ll call her Artemis – comes up to me and tells me that she has a 760 on the Math SAT. As I was about to tell her that her score was just fine, she keeps talking, to inform me that she was going to take the test again, since “clearly” her score was “too low.” I was like, “What!!!” I “ordered” Artemis to not take the Math SAT again, and instead to have a picnic on that Saturday. Because to us, a 760 math is the same as any higher score she could receive on the retest.

</p>