<p>I suggest that anyone interested in the diifrences between these schools examine the information at THIS link:</p>
<p>Yes. Our admitted gender split is closer to our applicant gender split. From many points of view, that's a good thing, no?</p>
<p>A significantly higher fraction of female applicants are admiitted than male applicants, and a significantly lower fraction of those female admits actually enroll.</p>
<p>There is an obvious assumption from the link which must be rebutted - using hard SAT data - that there is an "affirmative action" policy favoring females in admissions at CalTech, no matter how they may choose to dissemble.</p>
<p>Props to MIT for being open and above board about its efforts to undo the severe gender imbalance that still persists at CalTech.</p>
<p>Booo. I once made it a habit of getting involved in this nonsense. But Ben Jones has convinced me that it should be below me. I'll just tell you, having worked in Caltech admissions, that your accusation is wrong. But you have every right not to believe me. I just don't have the time to drive you into the ground today.</p>
<p>I tend to see the admissions and enrollment statistics as self explanatory on the matter of "affirmative action" or whatever else CalTech wishes to call it.. </p>
<p>The thing about CalTech that I find hardest to understand, however, is why they find it so hard to enroll a significant portion of their admits - male or female - given the tuition reductions and so-called "merit" awards they grant so liberally to those they are most interested in recruiting.</p>
<p>I thought I made it pretty clear that I won't waste time on trolls. Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this board, Byerly.</p>
<p>Different places are good for different people, and different places have different ways of choosing the members of their classes. Differences are not a bad thing. For every positive thing we could say about one school, we could say something equally negative about some facet of the other (as people certainly have on these boards). But we don't accomplish much by singing one school's praises at the expense of the other.</p>
<p>I'll also say that people make assumptions about admissions (at both schools) that are based on very limited views of the overall picture. Admissions decisions at schools of this level are extraordinarily complicated, as is the concept of yield.</p>
<p>I guess I'm just trying to say that admissions and enrollment statistics are hardly ever self-explanatory. I do this every day and I still often cannot see in the black and white that many profess to be true.</p>
<p>So with that said, I renew my request to keep the MIT & Caltech boards positive, and thank Ben Golub for his earlier words to this effect.</p>
<p>Being "positive" should not require dissembling about the extent of affirmative action programs, including efforts to achieve gender balance.</p>
<p>There is nothing, per se, wrong with such programs; indeed, many may consider them worthy.</p>
<p>What is a matter for concern, however, are efforts at CalTech - although not at MIT - to pretend that such programs do not exist.</p>
<p>It does not suffice to archly dismiss questions about this odd posture as the work of "trolls." </p>
<p>Let us emphasize that a request for greater candor with respect to such matters on the part of CalTech advocates (we will not call them "trolls") is in no way designed to undercut or deny the superior academic reputation of the school.</p>
<p>I have not understood, as the previous poster seems to imply, that we must censor ourselves here at the College Confidential - that we are to be "good news bears" exclusively - and that questions which make advocates for this school or that uncomfortable are to be dismissed as the work of evil "trolls."</p>
<p>True enough, the site is famously skittish about "confrontation" and "ad hominem " attacks. I submit, however, that it constitutes just such an "ad hominem attack" to dismiss people who do not share your prejudices as "trolls." </p>
<p>We are not, I do not believe, limited to "happy talk" only.</p>
<p>Well, maybe it's the royal "we" or maybe it's the Victorian vocabulary or maybe just the overuse of quotes, but I'd say we've got ourselves a Harvard troll here. How's the weather up there in Boston? Inflated reputation keeping y'all nice and warm?</p>
<p>Although Ben has wisely bowed out of the discussion, I'm going to have to back him up on this issue. There is no affirmative action program. Someone would have complained by now: you don't see a more rabid group of merit-based egalitarians than on the Caltech campus, and secrets are hard to keep at a small school. The admit percentage for girls is slightly higher because the female applicants are on average better qualified than the male applicants . This is how we do things.</p>
<p>If you're looking for reasons rather than a conspiracy, consider the differences in self-selection between the populations. An example can be found on this very message board: almost all of the overenthusiastic stats-laden posts with titles like "OMG*BBQ what are my chances at cal tech" are from **male no-hopers. From what I've seen, girls tend to have a more realistic inventory of their own abilities than guys.</p>
<p>Unconvincing. Some supporting SAT numbers would be helpful.</p>
<p>Ad hominem attacks on people who ask questions you don't like is not an effective response.</p>
<p>I'm not asking you to censor yourself. I'm asking you to act like a decent human being. It's fine to ask legitimate questions that are of concern to you. But walking onto the Caltech board and saying things like </p>
<p>
[quote]
The thing about CalTech that I find hardest to understand, however, is why they find it so hard to enroll a significant portion of their admits - male or female - given the tuition reductions and so-called "merit" awards they grant so liberally to those they are most interested in recruiting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...has nothing to do with your AA argument and is quite obviously designed to get a reaction out of Ben Golub with its implication that Caltech "buys" their preferred applicants.</p>
<p>That is textbook trolling. The community is not responding to your questions; they are responding to your confrontational attitude.</p>
<p>Come at it from a more respectful angle and people will be happy to engage in the conversation with you. That's all I mean when I ask people to keep things positive around here.</p>
<p>My questions are legitimate, and are of concern to many people. If you are not interested in addressing them, so be it. But you are hardly the ayatollah of this or any other page.</p>
<p>I think you missed my point - I never said that your questions weren't legitimate. Read my post again. I think Ben G was right to bow out of this though; I will too. Carry on. Sorry for any misunderstanding.</p>
<p>SAT numbers are not helpful for the obvious reason that SAT scores don't matter here. They're expected to be within a few points of perfect, and if they're not, the applicant better have a good reason, but that's all the consideration they get. End of story. Caltech is not a "by the numbers" school; none of the top-tier schools are.</p>
<p>Despite your preoccupation with meaningless statistics, I always thought that Harvard didn't care much about them either, preferring to consider the kind of numbers that come from sentences like "Daddy donated three buildings to the Business School". Do they? What's with that? And for that matter, how's your Ratio? Been too long without a date? :P</p>
<p>Also, I hereby declare myself Ayatollah of this page.</p>
<p>I will second Pangolin on his self-appointment, and trust that his rule shall be long and prosperous.</p>
<p>I find it hilarious that Byerly's "confrontational attitude" is seem as troublesome, but no one makes the same claim of Ben despite comments like "I just don't have the time to drive you into the ground today."</p>
<p>In any case, I find it curious that Caltech's peer evaluation score is lower than MIT's, it retains less freshmen, and has a lower graduation rate than MIT.</p>
<p>Mm, more trolls. Did they fumigate the standard troll residence today, causing you guys to run around looking for new homes?</p>
<p>I already said I wouldn't take your bait on the Caltech/MIT stuff, so I won't.</p>
<p>But you're curious why people seem to object to my remarks on this board less than the trolls', I will hazard a guess: because I spend the vast majority of my time here using my knowledge as a member of the admissions committee to answer questions about Caltech as helpfully as I can. I don't visit other schools' boards to engage in pointless insults that begin with "I find it curious that."</p>
<p>Posting specifically to annoy people and troll for fights is different from telling the trolls to buzz off. I think people object to the former kind of confrontational attitude more than to the latter. That's the distinction which your subtle intellect appears to have missed.</p>
<p>(I realize it would have been wiser to let someone else say all of this, but sometimes it's more fun to do it myself.)</p>
<p>"That's the distinction which your subtle intellect appears to have missed" more snide remarks. :)</p>
<p> so I won't No, it is more apt to say that you cant. They are facts.</p>
<p>"But you're curious..." - No, I wasn't curious. I found it hilarious. I must say, you answer questions whose answers that reflect on Caltech positively very well!</p>
<p>In any case, they were hardly insults-- simply objective observations. For my own good, I hope you don't have the time to "drive me into the ground!"</p>
<p>If you read the 278 posts above yours, you'll find a complete response to each of your astute observations. Byebye now.</p>