Affirmative action for female applicants at MIT?

<p>I've heard that MIT uses affirmative action to increase the percentage of women admitted. (There doesn't seem to be an official statement about how this works out right now, but the stats are pretty clear - women are almost 3 times as likely to be admitted, compared to a much smaller margin at Caltech due only to the greater self-selectivity of the group of women applying.)</p>

<p>My question is this: is there any way to indicate on the application that you'd prefer to be treated as male/not given preference over male candidates, short of lying about your gender? I'm thinking of applying to MIT next year, but I don't want to go unless I actually get in on merit as opposed to a doubled X chromosome.</p>

<p>Would the admissions officers just put me at ease about any "unfair" admissions by rejecting me if I requested this?</p>

<p>there is no AA for girls. The get in like guys, on merit.</p>

<p>Why would it matter? Youre not going to attempt some Ms Doubtfiresque roleplaying are you?</p>

<p>I'm sure you can just leave it blank and check nothing.</p>

<p>agreed, tho then you run into the possibility that they'll infer your gender from your name, frinstance.</p>

<p>im sure youre name being joseph or stephanie wont give it away but theres always the DYI sex change.
oops got beat too it</p>

<p>women are not 3 times as likely to be admitted - it just seems to be the case from statistics, because fewer women apply to MIT. This does not imply that it is "easier" for women to get in.</p>

<p>My senior (female) got into Harvard, Yale and Stanford, but not MIT. And if MIT had affirmative action for women, the percentage would be 50-50 instead of the current 43-57. The same probably goes for Caltech.</p>

<p>well, you do have to allow some leeway for the difference between who's accepted and who actually ends up deciding to attend. i don't think you can really attribute the difference in ratios between MIT and caltech to differences in the yield population; i'm pretty sure the admit population is more even at MIT, the ratios are too different.</p>

<p><<women are="" not="" 3="" times="" as="" likely="" to="" be="" admitted="" -="" it="" just="" seems="" the="" case="" from="" statistics,="" because="" fewer="" women="" apply="" mit.="" this="" does="" imply="" that="" is="" "easier"="" for="" get="" in.="">></women></p>

<p>I /am/ thinking about the differences between applying women and applying men - overall it seems that the female applicants are a bit more self-selecting, due to a variety of factors (guys might think they have a better shot; girls may be under less pressure to apply to a tech school; etc.) So it certainly makes sense that girls would have a <em>higher</em> acceptance rate naturally. But 3-to-1? That seems a little high, especially when you consider that Caltech has almost exactly the same issues and a much lower discrepancy in acceptance rates.</p>

<p><<my senior="" (female)="" got="" into="" harvard,="" yale="" and="" stanford,="" but="" not="" mit.="" if="" mit="" had="" affirmative="" action="" for="" women,="" the="" percentage="" would="" be="" 50-50="" instead="" of="" current="" 43-57.="" same="" probably="" goes="" caltech.="">></my></p>

<p>I don't really understand this argument. Affirmative action means favoring one group over another (in order to promote diversity), not making the ratio 50-50! Affirmative action might bring the (natural) 25-75 split to 35-65, for instance, or in a more balanced case from 35-65 to 40-60.</p>

<p><<there is="" no="" aa="" for="" girls.="" the="" get="" in="" like="" guys,="" on="" merit.="">></there></p>

<p>Hmm. Do you know if MIT actually claims this? (I'd be delighted if it were true - it just seems a bit hard to believe.) Also, I didn't mean to imply that no girls at MIT got in on merit.</p>

<p>MIT definitely practices affirmative action is selecting women for the entering class.</p>

<p>The following is an article from the Tech that was published in 2005:</p>

<hr>

<p>Overcompensating</p>

<p>Cassi Hunt</p>

<p>The devil’s advocate steps onto the podium, brushes off her finely tailored red velvet suit, and -- mirroring the behavior of her defendant -- opens her big, dumb mouth:</p>

<p>I think everyone needs to cut Lawrence Summers some slack. The remarks he made about the possibility of women being innately disadvantaged to men in science fields were at best too forceful and at worst poorly-timed, but that doesn’t mean he should be turned into a whipping boy for feminists and jaded professionals angry about discrimination in universities and corporations. Those who actually read the transcript of his speech know that he placed inherent science aptitude of women below the strain of family and the need for an intense work schedule, and above discrimination. I don’t know enough about human physiology to comment on this order, but I do know that I agree with some of the finer points that made him reach this conclusion.</p>

<p>For Summers, statistics that show lower perfomance or a lower presence of women in math and sciences suggest that there may be an inherent difference between men and women’s abilities, and my point -- get ready for this, in case you decide to write an enraged response -- is that this is a valid hypothesis, one that establishes a point from which experiments can be arranged, and hopefully, meaningful conclusions can be established.</p>

<p>However, I’d like to offer a counter-hypothesis. Discrimination today isn’t the blatant attitude of male superiority that plagued women of past generations, though, as Summers pointed out, there is still concern about mankind’s subconscious tendency to prefer applicants that look more like themselves. But the most debilitating source of discrimination I’ve experienced so far is unique in that it’s intentional and actually considered progressive: it’s the coddling attitude that says I’ve been unconsciously disadvantaged from birth by inbred discrimination and therefore deserve special consideration. How is this effectually different from a genetic disadvantage? In both cases, I’m treated like I am inferior because of factors beyond my control. I think I can speak for all my readers -- guys and gals -- when I say we worked our ass off to get where we are, and I for one don’t appreciate the underlying question my paranoid psyche hears in the minds of my male counterparts: would you be here if you were male?</p>

<p>To explain my position, here’s some sense of my perspective. I come from a suburban area of Missouri where teachers was more interested in the fact that students actually wanted to pursue such a demanding area as physics than with whether they had pink or blue on their baby blankets. The first time I felt discriminated against was at a college fair my junior year, when I tried to talk to a representative from some East Coast school, and he automatically brought up biology when I mentioned I was interested in science. When I said I was in fact leaning towards physics, he stumbled over himself for a moment, then launched into a speech on how they were, as a matter of fact, very interested in their female applicants and that their Women’s blah blah group... “Whoa!” I wanted to shout as I cupped my chest. “I gots boobs! Where the hell did these come from?!”</p>

<p>In fact, it wasn’t until I left the Bible Belt and came to the glorious bastion of liberalism that is Massachusetts that I’ve noticed incongruity over my choice of major. Shortly after my acceptance here, I received an email from some MIT women’s engineering club, and whenever people ask me about my interests, they almost invariably want the perspective of “a Woman in Physics.” Talking with other chicks in the physical sciences, math, and engineering, I’ve discovered that I’m not the only one irritated by this. Then when I checked my E3 card, I noticed that “diversity” had been checked off, and despite MIT’s much-lampooned proportion of Asian females (yeah, we had one of those at my school back home...), I doubt being white earned me that mark. I’ve almost become loathe to mention my course number, lest I be congratulated yet again on my determination to “break social norms” and “give women a voice” in the field. Blegh. Maybe I just want to smash particles together, huh?</p>

<p>Nothing has been more deterring to my aspirations than the idea that I am an aberration. Even MIT’s impressive course load hasn’t caused me to question myself as much as the notion that throughout my career, my peers will look at me like I am the rare exception. And they will look at me that way whether or not it is because of genetic differences between us, or just this pervasive social attitude.</p>

<p>My role models don’t have to have boobs to inspire me, just brains. I understand that in the past there weren’t as many women distinguished enough for the history books because of discrimination, barring any additional genetic defect, and I don’t mind the male visages -- as fugly as they may be -- that peer out from the first three chapters of every lay physics book under the sun. What I don’t need is chick empowerment groups barking at me about Marie Curie, Jocelyn Bell, Sophie Germain, or Rosalyn Franklin to be impressed with them. It’s demeaning that they think shouting such names from the hilltops is still what it takes to earn them a spotlight in their fields.</p>

<p>As long as we’re asking questions about why there aren’t as many women in science, we might as well investigate genetics as well as discrimination because the sooner we figure out what’s up, the sooner we can drop it and move on. Then maybe by the time that I hope to earn a spotlight for myself, it’ll be as an accomplished member of my field -- not as a Woman Who Made It.</p>

<hr>

<p>For those of you not interested in reading the whole thing, the key paragraph is this:</p>

<p>"Then when I checked my E3 card, I noticed that “diversity” had been checked off, and despite MIT’s much-lampooned proportion of Asian females (yeah, we had one of those at my school back home...), I doubt being white earned me that mark."</p>

<p>(The author is a caucasian female.)</p>

<p>Yes, females do earn a check in the diversity box on their E3 cards. As to what kind of a boost it provides, who knows? Overally, I definitely think that the females at MIT are just as qualified as the males there, affirmative action or not.</p>

<p>"compared to a much smaller margin at Caltech due only to the greater self-selectivity of the group of women applying."</p>

<p>They might be more self-selective, but it's also worth pointing out that Caltech's male:female ratio is about 7:3, while MIT's is somewhere between 1:1 and 3:2.</p>

<p>There's no doubt that women who have the courage and dedication to the sciences to apply to MIT are, taken as a whole, proportionally more self-selecting than the male applicants. There's also no doubt that, as you point out, the discrepancy does not account for a schism as large as 3-1.</p>

<p>flierdeke, it shows a commendable amount of character to be seriously inquiring about a way to be considered in a more competitive applicant pool. Given the unavoidable gender data that the admissions office will be collecting from you (like your name, and the gender-biased pronouns used in your recommendations and interview report) it does not sound possible to accomplish what you're asking. You would influence your application reader (one way or the other) by asking to be considered in a different applicant pool. Maybe they'd respect you more for asking, or resent you for bringing it up, but because people are inherently subjective, they would not be able to ignore it entirely.</p>

<p>My advice to you is to forget about it and apply as a female. The ratio will be set wherever the administration wants it set. If you are admitted, you aren't personally taking the spot of a more qualified male applicant, you're just kicking out a less qualified female. Based on the character you've demonstrated, it sounds like you deserve an MIT education, in any applicant pool.</p>

<p>KentuckyFriedBeef, Thats an opinion piece, it would have been better if you would of just pointed out that diversity box is checked for females in E3 card</p>

<p>This has been beat to death. The only comment I'm going to make is that females still have to be OUTSTANDING to be admitted...</p>

<p>this has been beat to death but people will tend to believe what they want to believe. You personally wont hear me complaining about there being more girls on campus or any of the admited students(i think)</p>

<p>For the record, the "diversity" field is never checked simply for being female. Without seeing the application in question, I couldn't tell you why it was checked, but I can promise you that it wasn't for gender.</p>

<p>Well thank y'all for the support. I spent the last 10 days deflecting jeers and harrassment by a buncha BC CAlc/AP Stat/AP Physics waldo male classmates who claim I only got in cuz I'm female. They ignore the fact that MIT has expressed its intention to develop as, and be regarded as, a world class educator, not an engineering factory for dorky little guys. Toward that end, I submit that my top 1% stats in VERBAL AND QUANT. APPEAL TO THEM. FURTHER, MY ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN REALMS BEYOND MATH AND SCIENCE---ALTHOUGH INCLUDING MATH AND SCIENCE---OFFER BREADTH TO THE mit COMMUNITY. I am also "hot", according tothe dumb-jocks I claim as friends and have more than my fair share of male/female experience and party experience. I look more like I am a fit for UCSD than MIT and that is what really kills them. Jealousy is a truly beautiful thing. Listen, honey, stand up and be counted as a qualified female. The admissions director is a woman and there is no way in H she is gonna do the affirmative action injustice to female applicants. She came from the generation that suffered from being "the token female". As for Cal being 7:1---my bet is that the UC's take away a lot of female applicants because women still sufer from parents not willing to shell out that much for them and females still suffer from fear of spending that kinda cash on their futures. In the east, MIT is mecca with no state-school competition.</p>

<p>And this is like the 50th time this topic has been brought up. Last time pebbles said something to the effect: "yes there is a slight bias, but hey, don't think about it, go out on a hike.." and there can't be a better way to answer. I'm really sick of this, honestly.</p>

<p>If girls have an advantage, SO WHAT?! What's so bad about it, or what's so incomprehensible?! I'm a guy and I'm not bitter at this, neither would I be happy had I been a girl. Infact I'm happy for my friends (girls) who have gotten in, and I don't think any of them is any less qualified.</p>

<p>Think of it this way - they select from two pools - one for girls and another for guys. The guys' pool is tougher. Just like the intl pool. Period. Infact I don't see the point in MIT denying any bias.</p>

<p>The U.S. Marine Band auditions people from the other side of a curtain, so the judges see nothing, know nothing, and only hear the playing. The selection is 100% merit, completely independent of all other factors.</p>

<p>I think that's really cool, although I'm not sure it would work so well with college admissions.</p>

<p>While I don't want to go down the affirmative action road (again), I will totally agree with the article that someone posted.</p>

<p>Mention that you're a woman who wants to go into science and engineering and the world grinds to a halt. It's anNOYing. I don't want to know that anything about me was affected by affirmative action, but in the more general sense, I want people to at least shut UP about it.</p>

<p>I read in a book a story about a girl who participated in some kind of racing competition, and when she was asked "Is it your goal to be the fasted girl in the sport?" she responded, "No. It's my goal to be the fastest PERSON in the sport."</p>

<p>Well props to her because I feel the same way. Sometimes I feel like an animal in a zoo because people think it's this great phenonenon that a scientific intellect AND a set of ovaries can be found in the same human body. It's just counterproductive because there are these people who think they're being progressive and liberal and encouraging these trends by drawing attention to the rarity of the situation. It practically instills fear in girls because it just makes it seem even more challenging- like only the REALLY smart girls can be engineers. It makes girls think twice before entering the sciences.</p>

<p>That, and we just get sick of all that "women in engineering" junk mail. Yuck.</p>

<p>Even if they practice it, I don't think the guys who end up attending will complain too much. In fact, they should be happy not having to face such a terrible male-to-female ratio (ahhhem Caltech).</p>