<p>okay here is my take on it:
maybe out of the 8000 male applicants 2000 are qualified... but they only have 800 spots.. so there are some random factors that come into play and 800 get in.
out of the 3000 female applicants there are about 800 qualified ... and they have 800 spots.
SO the accepted girls are still just "qualified" its just that randomness (i.e basoon player vs. Clarinet player as someone mentioned above) is less of a factor.</p>
<p>the logic in my mind:</p>
<ol>
<li>Fewer females apply to MIT than males</li>
<li>The matriculation rate of accepted females is much lower than the matriculation rate of accepted males.</li>
<li>Part of the explanation for the two statements above: careers like engineering are looked upon as "predominantly male" careers due to social influences; the stereotypes that surround MIT don't help, either.</li>
<li>MIT is trying to break away from these stereotypes; the blogs are clear evidence of this.</li>
<li>It is difficult to maintain both a 50/50 m/f split and a diverse student body at the same time for any school, especially for MIT, since it's applicant pool is so skewed.</li>
<li>Thus, a greater percentage of female applicants are admitted.</li>
</ol>
<p>I think that's the most that any one of us can confidently assume because neither MIT, nor any university, is willing to release applicant data separated by gender or race.</p>
<p>Cowsgomu, plenty of universities release statistics that are broken down by race and gender. Either that or all of the stats I see on SAT scores by race on all the Ivy boards are just made up. I'm willing to accept that female applicants are, as a whole, more qualified than male applicants if ben jones and company say so. But I think some of you guys are sacrificing logic for political correctness. I think just as many girls apply to MIT do so just because they are interested in the sciences as do guys, so me?'s theory is largely just as he said, mere theory; I'm not sure this actually plays out. I've known about 50 people that applied to MIT, and inside my small sample, this was true. So 8000 guys and 3000 girls apply. Let's say girls are really better qualified, and that there are also too many qualified applicants to fill a class. Let's say we're left with 1500 girls and 3000 guys then. (I allowed a larger percentage of guys to get knocked out because they're supposedly weaker applicants). If MIT is really faced at picking about 60% guys and 40% girls, it's just clear that the guys will be more qualified. Some of you guys have tried to argue that they just select from these groups based on "random facts" like what instrument they play, but we're assuming all of these "qualified" applicants are equally qualified, and this is simply not true. Some applicants are great and will do well at MIT and some are absolutely stellar and will be top of their class at MIT (IMO students, Intel finalists, USA Today All-Academic team, etc). Each group will probably have an equal gradient of "qualifiedness" and only in isolated cases will this be set aside for "other factors". Since we have 1500 girls and 3000 guys that, as groups, are all equally qualified, and we must take a smaller percentage of guys, the guys chosen will have more "qualifiedness" than the girls assuming these groups aren't homogenous and some sort of gradient exists. It's also worth noting that MIT and Caltech have many cross-applicants and Caltech is about 71% male. They obviously have a different policy regarding gender.</p>
<p>i'm sure its probably a mix of both factors...
but i mean who wants to go to a school w/ a 70/30 m/f ratio anyways? </p>
<p>I know it isn't politically correct... but based on history and modern day it is clear that more males are innovators in science/technology than are females. maybe MIT wants to change that or at least give girls a chance because society has kinda screwed them over until the past 50 years.</p>
<p>Hmm, so you're saying that if a given person doesn't get into mit it denies them the chance of innovating? If you accept that logic then it follows that the seat you gave to a woman is denying some guy his chance to be an innovater. </p>
<p>I should remark that I don't believe getting accepted or denied to mit is going to determine whether they are an innovator.</p>
<p>
What I means is that no school is going to release the average SAT scores for each race or gender. Universities release the percentages of the acceptance pool that each race fills but I have yet to see actual admission statistics (average GPA, SAT, ACT, etc.) for a specific race or gender.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Either that or all of the stats I see on SAT scores by race on all the Ivy boards are just made up.
[/quote]
Source? I'm pretty sure most schools don't release this kind of data.</p>
<p>Just take a quick look around the Harvard, Pton, and Yale boards. Perform a search if need be. In multiple places I've seen SAT scores broken down by race.</p>
<p>I have been reading the boards and I have never seen SAT scores broken down by race.
I just did a search and didn't find anything.</p>
<p>Please post a link to what you're talking about.</p>
<p>I would say it's 9 times as easier for females to get into MIT than males.</p>
<p>Gee, normally females are only 1/3 as qualified as males at the top spectrum at math/science. What this means is if you take the top 1000 people in math, there will be a max of 250 females, versas 750 males, at best. And the top 50 will virtually be all males. Yet MIT accept females at 3X the rate of males, therefore, it's 9 times easier for a girl to get in. And I'm sure everyone know this so girls if you have an MIT degree it doesn't really mean much when it comes to job seeking time. :D</p>
<p>. . . . . . .</p>
<p>................</p>
<p>
[quote]
whatever joejia said
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Finally, a voice of Reason.</p>
<p>all hail joejia: he is a math god.</p>
<p>I thought you went to Princeton...</p>
<p>haha... why did someone make a part 2??</p>