Cruel Process

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
61

<p>kawhitney,
I only speak about people I know well enough. I don’t know you and won’t be able to compare you to those people I know. But from you post I think that you understand yourself that if gender were removed from the applications, you might not get into MIT. So being a girl probably helped. Now, I believe you shouldn’t be upset about it. There were lots of girls rejected, and some with better stats. MIT saw a potential in you, and you can be proud of it. My point is not that someone deserves less or more to be admitted. I am trying to say that there is no need to deny the obvious fact: girls are given a better chance for whatever reason which is totally up to MIT. I’m only saying that MIT is not picking the top candidates like they did 15 years ago.</p>

<p>I recommend that you accept the fact that there are a lot of people around us who are smarter/more achieved/more qualified/more passionate than we are. For example, some courses at MIT will probably be too hard for you, but easy for other people. That’s okay - you’ll find courses you’ll do great in. Use your chance to the full potential. Congratulations on your admission!</p>

62

<p>@luisarose…Nobody says its required…but its becoming more than a coincidence…There are thousands of applicants who have AMAZING test scores here and it isn’t admissions fault at all…I said that before… I am just saying that NOBODY really looks into context while looking at internationals…</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>And you would be wrong.</p>

64

<p>really…can u prove it? If you can , Ill believe it.</p>

<p>And im sorry If didn’t mention…But I most refer to Indians/chinese as international.I can relate best to them:)</p>

<p>Btw…guys how do you quote on CC??</p>

65

<p>

And you have no evidence for this assertation, other than stories of people you know. I mean, I know a couple hundred girls who got into MIT, and they weren’t any more or less qualified as a group than the couple hundred guys I know who got in, but that’s not actually evidence, and I don’t expect it to be treated as such.</p>

<p>The only data point you have is that girls are admitted to MIT in higher percentages than their proportions in the applicant pool would suggest. But so are 2400-scorers, and valedictorians, and Asian-Americans.</p>

66

<p>That is so smart to ask outsiders evidence for assertation rather than giving evidence to disprove it :)</p>

67

<p>@yolochka: Whether or not you meant insult, I find it rude to tell someone that they probably got into MIT for their gender, however gently you put it.</p>

<p>Women are admitted to MIT at a higher percentage than men, yes. But that’s because if they were admitted at the same rate, MIT would be 75% male and 25% female based on the applicant pool (very skewed towards men), and MIT values a balanced and diverse freshman class.</p>

<p>If more girls applied, the admittance % for men and women would be equal.</p>

<p>That said, it’s not any easier for girls to get into MIT. First of all, the female applicant pool is self-selecting: girls are a lot less likely to apply to MIT in general, so the ones that do apply are usually (very) “qualified,” whereas many males apply who have little to no chance of admittance. Based on what admissions has said about this, the female pool probably has a higher concentration of serious, competitive MIT applicants (concentration = # of competitive/# total, so that’s true even if there are many fewer female applicants).</p>

<p>Secondly, looking at the acceptance rates alone is misleading. So if 20% of girls and 5% of guys get into MIT one year, can we assume that ANY female applicant has a 20% chance, and ANY male has a 5% chance? Of course not. Your admission to MIT is based on your holistic application, not just your gender.</p>

<p>And lastly (vent incoming), there’s a reason fewer girls apply to MIT. We live in a culture where, to lots of people, a woman’s value is primarily derived from her physical beauty, THEN from her intelligence. There is far more pressure on girls to be pretty than to be smart and successful. And in many places, math and science are still considered more appropriate for boys than for girls, and girls are even told to focus on English or history class. Girls as a whole are not pushed towards math and science, so those who choose to pursue it have something of an uphill battle (yes, still).</p>

<p>And once you get out of college, it gets much worse. The gender disparity in the hard sciences and engineering is astounding, and in many fields female scientists are still treated like crap and not taken seriously by their peers.</p>

<p>In many places in America, women and men are not truly given equal opportunities. MIT’s admission rate for women, as well as its rates for URMs, are higher because of that. It’s all part of the “context” that they emphasize in their admissions process.</p>

68

<p>@quiverfox: From reading your posts, you seem like a great guy. I was rooting for you to be admitted to MIT. No one can disagree that because of the country you are coming from your chance of being admitted was ridiculously slim, regardless of how strong your application was, and regardless of how perfect you were as a match. There are just not enough spots available. I hope you keep your positive attitude and have other great experiences wherever you end up continuing your studies.</p>

<p>Luisarose is right about the culture we live in. I go to an all girls school. There were no AP physics classes and no computer classes available. There was no math team/club. Luckily for me my dad introduced me to computer science and a whole exciting world opened up to me. MIT only became a thought to me in 11th grade and now I will be entering the class of 2017. If it weren’t for my dad, I would have been one of the many girls who were qualified for MIT, but never thought to apply.</p>

69

<p>

But that’s the thing – the evidence isn’t public. The MIT admissions officers have stated ad nauseam that the male and female applicant pools are differently composed, and that women at MIT are just as successful (and, by some metrics, more successful) as the men, but people who believe the admissions officers are bad actors using a powerful postition to push a political agenda don’t tend to take them at their word, so I don’t generally bother.</p>

<p><–has been around CC a long time and has participated in more iterations of this argument than she cares to remember</p>

70

<p>rothstem…Yeah Im back to normal anyways now:)</p>

71

<p>

</p>

<p>There are far more Asians here that are US citizens…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quot]Your text here[/quot], except spell “quot” as “quote” and it’ll actually work.</p>

72

<p>got it…thanks:)</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually they haven’t. Every year the coaches send the admissions office a list of candidates that they would really like the admissions office to accept, and MIT does consider this. However, unlike schools like Harvard, there is no separate category for athletic admissions, and a coach cannot get a student in who would otherwise not be admitted. However, MIT is an evidence based institution and a letter from a coach does count of evidence of athletic accomplishment, in the same way as a letter from the music department after reviewing a music portfolio counts as evidence of artistic accomplishment. Neither of those things are going to get you in, but they cannot hurt. </p>

<p>Dean of Admissions Stuart Schmill, before he joined the admissions office, was coach of MIT’s varsity crew team (our only Division I sport). So he has seen both sides of the athletic recruitment process. It is simply wrong to say that “athletic recruitment has no bearing on MIT’s admissions”. However, it is also wrong to say that a coach’s letter is sufficient to get a student in (which is different at most Ivy league schools). The MIT coaches are sufficiently experienced that I would be surprised if they did not make this clear. That is not to say that it did not happen, merely that I would be surprised.</p>

74

<p>I just wanted to remark on the comment by luisarose

</p>

<p>It is true that there is still a large gender disparity in the sciences and engineering, if one looks at the representation of women among tenure-stream faculty at research universities. On the other hand, this is gradually changing, and the representation, though low, is nevertheless noticeably higher than it was a generation ago. It will take a long time to approach equality at this rate.</p>

<p>On the other hand, in a 30+ year career, I have seen no evidence for the statement that “female scientists are treated like crap and not taken seriously by their peers.”</p>

<p>I seem to be taken seriously everywhere (except for a few forums on CC). Female scientists at some career stages do tend to be paid slightly less than their male counterparts, and as the MIT study showed, they may not be allocated as much laboratory space as similarly situated men. I think that this too is changing gradually, however.</p>

75

<p>@QuantMech: As a mere high school student with an interest in feminism and the sciences, I have no claims to experience or unbiased ideas on the matter. It was my impression that this was the case because the few women scientists I know personally (pharmaceuticals industry) have found themselves unable to advance in their careers, despite being well qualified to do so.</p>

76

<p>

It’s hyperbolic, yes, but there are absolutely real issues of gender inequity. Just last year, there was a [study[/url</a>] in PNAS showing that scientists of both genders were less likely to offer a job to a hypothetical female candidate than a male candidate, although the resumes in the study were identical except for the name. </p>

<p>Nature did a [url=<a href=“Specials : Nature”>Specials : Nature]feature</a> issue](<a href=“Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students - PubMed”>Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students - PubMed) on gender disparities a few weeks ago, and the feature article starts with the bare assertation, “Science remains institutionally sexist.” </p>

<p>Things are absolutely better than they were several decades ago, but discrimination still exists, and it still has real effects on the lives of female scientists.</p>

77

<p>I agree that the issues of gender inequality have not been resolved. Earlier in my career, I was very hopeful that they would be resolved by this point. There has been progress, but it is taking much longer than I expected, really.</p>

<p>With regard to luisarose’s point about women in the pharmaceutical industry, I sympathize with the women she mentioned. It is certainly possible to encounter individuals who are overtly sexist, and very tricky if they hold a superior position, especially in a company. On top of that, a number of the companies in “big pharma” seem to be following policies that are driven more by the quarterly results than by the longer-term picture. For one example, I think that Pfizer “downsized” the scientist who invented Lipitor. For another, I have heard that they are not conducting much R&D work on new antibiotics, which will be sorely needed soon. So I realize that those women are in a tough spot.</p>

<p>In my career to date, I could point to a few instances when I think I have been treated unequally, but never “like crap.”</p>

<p>I can also point to some changes on generational time scales. My mother was not permitted to take physics in high school, because the physics teacher did not allow women to take the class. She took bookkeeping instead. I wanted to go to Caltech (can I mention them here?) during my early high-school years, but they did not admit women at that time. As an undergraduate, I never had a single female professor in any of my math, physics, or chemistry classes, and had only two women professors out of a total of roughly 60 courses in all fields. This is not to say that things have equalized now, just that even glacial changes are perceptible if you wait long enough!</p>

<p>To speak to the earlier point, about the raw odds of admission for male and female applicants: the point has been made earlier that the raw odds tell you nothing unless you know that the male and female applicant pools are matched in qualifications. For a long time, it has been the case that a higher percentage of the female applicants are “in range” for admission. I doubt that this has changed.</p>

78

<p>luisarose

It would be 30% female to reflect the ratio in the applicant pool. So you do admit that the reason for increased chances for females could be that “MIT values a balanced and diverse freshman class”. But then you say,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Let me reply to this. First of all, I don’t see a reason to believe admissions assertions until they reveal data to support this claim. My personal observations suggest otherwise. Of the girls I know who were accepted, all but one, were not as strong as boys who I know were rejected. By less strong, I mean academics, test scores, demonstrated interests in STEM, and often personality. </p>

<p>Okay, I’m willing to accept the fact that my sample is not representative of the broad situation. Let’s look at other things. For example, in my town schools participate in PLTW and offer a variety of engineering classes in high school. One of them is “Principles of Engineering”, and then also classes like “Aerospace Engineering” and “Digital Electronics”. Guess how many girls register for these classes, despite all the efforts and encouragement starting in middle school to get them sign up. Unfortunately, with all the effort, only a few girls take these classes. And btw, in my town we have a big university, lots of educated and liberal people, etc. There is increasing awareness that girls need to be more involved in STEM. Yet, still engineering and higher level mathematics and physics classes are mostly populated by boys. Is it a problem we should do something about? Absolutely! We need to work on changing this culture.</p>

<p>Now, with these patterns in high school, you tell me that somehow these same girls who weren’t interested in engineering and calculus classes, and didn’t participate in robotics or math clubs, somehow magically became strong candidates for MIT by the fall of senior year, and those girls who apply to MIT are better, on average, than male applicants. Why doesn’t this seem plausible, given the current involvement of girls in STEM in high school?</p>

<p>I suggest that you read an insider opinion on this issue
[GUEST</a> COLUMN: After 150 years, MIT is heading in the wrong direction with affirmative action - The Tech](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N4/briscoe.html]GUEST”>http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N4/briscoe.html)</p>

<p>My final point is that life is not fair, and so is MIT admission, whether we like it or not. The girls are likely given some boost in admissions to MIT, while boys are probably given a boost in admission to LACs. You have a long life ahead of you, and you will be advantaged in some situations and disadvantaged in others. They’ll probably balance themselves out in the end. You might want to learn to accept both advantages and disadvantages graciously.</p>

79

<p>To show that situation in my town is not unique, a quick search for data about girls’ participation in PLTW revealed</p>

<p>“Currently only a handful of high school girls are enrolled in PLTW”
[Graves</a> County High School PLTW | National Girls Collaborative Project](<a href=“http://www.ngcproject.org/program/graves-county-high-school-pltw]Graves”>http://www.ngcproject.org/program/graves-county-high-school-pltw)</p>

<p>I couldn’t find numbers by course, this is the best data I found so far
[Project</a> Lead the Way](<a href=“http://www.slideshare.net/NAFCareerAcads/pltw-presentation]Project”>Project Lead the Way)
Overall females: ~24%
Biomedical Sciences: ~70%
Biomedical Engineering: ~38%
so if you remove biomedical science and biomedical engineering, you get into much smaller percentages in other PLTW courses.</p>

<p>also see this study
<a href=“http://www.socialimpactexchange.org/sites/www.socialimpactexchange.org/files/NWEA-PLTW_Evaluation(2010)_0.pdf[/url]”>http://www.socialimpactexchange.org/sites/www.socialimpactexchange.org/files/NWEA-PLTW_Evaluation(2010)_0.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

80

<p>It has been said many times on this board over a great many years, that at the top end of the pool, there is little to distinguish between the male and the female applicant pool. I write about as many “Oh yes, what a wonderful applicant” reports for male as for female applicants (slightly more male but not hugely more). However, if I look at the other end of the spectrum, I write vastly more “anybody but this please” interview reports for males than for females. </p>

<p>It seems that many more men try for MIT as a huge reach with no real chance at all, than is true for women. I do not know why this is. I am no sociologist. However the female pool is vastly more self-selecting than is true of the male pool. MIT reports that that my personal experience interviewing over a decade or so is not atypical. The female pool overall is more self-selecting, and that results in a disproportionate percentage of women accepted versus the men.</p>