redrobot wrote:
A perhaps self-aggrandizing theory: the massive round 1 deferrals, are, in part, a yield management strategy. MIT is picking off the people they suspect would go somewhere else (the H/S/W of the word) and trying to smoke them out. MIT, like most of the schools ranked 5-10, is freaked out about having their yield take a hit, which would drop them in the rankings). My guess is the chances are pretty good if you're deferred, equally as good as any other round 2 applicant, and perhaps better (particularly if you make a tangible commitment by agreeing to stay on the list/send a commitment letter, etc). They even specifically ask you to withdraw if you accept a place somewhere else, which is a completely incoherent request if MIT is your top choice. Hey Rod, if you're begging for more time because you couldn't get to making a decision on my application--are you going to refund me my $250 if I pull out now? Didn't think so.
I think the reason for the deferrals is more obvious/less conspiracy theory. I think the unemployment rate is probably a good proxy for "job opportunities." I know MIT has had more applicants this year than last, something they were not expecting. However, even though I think unemployment rate is a good proxy, it is a lagging indicator, so I think it's possible that R2 will be less competitive than R1 as the economy appears to be at a turning point. I think they wanted to save some good candidates for R2 rather than ding them to ensure they get the best out of the total applicant pool.
As for the choice to opt out of deferral, any way they can shrink the number of applications they have to re-review is probably worth trying.