<p>what is the difference in getting into CalTech and MIT?
by that i mean, what are some things that each school looks at differently in an applicant?
i've heard that caltech is number-based and MIT looks more at Ec's. is that true?</p>
<p>I don't know if they "look at numbers" more than MIT, but the SAT midpoint at Caltech is about 40 points higher than MIT (1520 vs. 1480) two years ago ... in fact the highest in the country. Is this a coincidence, or by design? who knows.</p>
<p>It could be true that Caltech is slightly more interested than MIT in high stats and MIT is slightly more interested than Caltech in interesting and diverse ECs, but overall the difference between the two schools' selection criteria is very small, and the groups of admitted students overlap to a large degree.</p>
<p>Caltech is apparently more numbers based. And while being a girl helps with either in admissions, a girl has better chances at Caltech (3:1 guy to girl ratio FTL :()</p>
<p>^^No, being a girl does not help at all at Caltech. Caltech does not practice affirmative action in admissions. It's just that they typically don't apply unless they are extremely qualified. It's called self-selection.</p>
<p>Self-selection does impact MIT admissions as well, but there is some gender AA. I don't really think there is much of a boost for females there, but it's hard to know.</p>
<p>^^Are you sure about that? I'm not saying you're wrong but I heard that Caltech's female acceptance rate was something like 3X that of the male's. I'm not sure if that is based purely on self-selection or an admissions policy. I'm no expert on the admissions policy at Caltech so maybe Ben Golub could give the correct response?</p>
<p>^^Yes, I am sure about that.</p>
<p>I'm not sure about MIT, but I know that CalTech doesn't give any admissions breaks to recruited athletes. Their basketball team (among others, I would assume) has a several hundred game losing streak as a result. This results in an overall higher SAT average and higher qualified student body because everybody has to meet the same requirements.</p>
<p>and at caltech, in recent years, it seems as if more and more girls are applying. the admissions rate for the students has been dropping, but for roughly the last 7 or 8 years - based on what ive calculated using the cds - the admission rate for guys has constantly been around the 15-17 range, and the girls admission rate has fell from i believe roughly 35 to the mid 20s. so overall its hard to determine whether gender truly has something to do with it.</p>
<p>mit is probably more holistic in terms of how they do admissions. a urm from my school last year got a 1860 and got in. he was nonetheless very smart, but i think that outside circumstances affected his ability to perform well on standardized tests. at the same time, at caltech, they seem to be more concerned with your history of doing well so that whatever you do there is simply an extension to what youve already been doing. or at least thats the ruse im under.</p>
<p>from what i can see anyways however, mit is more forgiving for mistakes as long as its evident that the potential is there, while caltech focuses more on the history of development and success and potential collectively.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, being a girl does not help at all at Caltech. Caltech does not practice affirmative action in admissions. It's just that they typically don't apply unless they are extremely qualified. It's called self-selection.</p>
<p>Self-selection does impact MIT admissions as well, but there is some gender AA. I don't really think there is much of a boost for females there, but it's hard to know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have a source for your statement? For example, average stats of applicants / those admitted, by gender? That'd be the only way to say that the female applicant pool is more self-selective and that Caltech is not going "easier" on them in admissions.</p>
<p>As it stands, with a 3:1 gender ratio and a much higher acceptance rate for females, you can't help but conclude that Caltech is trying to boost its female population by going easier on them.</p>
<p>Ben hasn't been around for a while, but admissions here is not a secret. I know and talk to several people on the admissions committee quite a bit as well. Caltech absolutely does not, under any circumstances, practice AA. There is absolutely no advantage to being a girl or minority whatsoever in admissions. The idea that Caltech is trying to boost its female population by going easier on them is absurd. Admissions is trying to boost its female population by trying to get more females to apply (there was a ~34% increase in female applications, as compared to an ~11% increase in male applications last year, according the Tech, which is unfortunately down at the moment), and trying to be more aggressive about getting those who are admitted to matriculate.</p>
<p>Caltech admissions will focus on passion for math, science, and engineering. We are not numbers based in the sense that the 800 or 36 gets in over the 780 or 34, but we are numbers based in the sense that 10 on the USAMO is more impressive than a 3 on the AIME, and if you do not prove yourself with 760+'s and all A's in math and science AP classes, you're at a real disadvantage. The rationale is, if you can't even get a 760 on something as easy as the SAT II for math, how an earth are you going to survive core math and physics? Of course, we do admit plenty of kids who do not have perfect score records who prove themselves in other ways, but you really don't want to give admissions a chance to doubt you.</p>
<p>Caltech wants to admit the smartest and most accomplished students in their pool, because the curriculum is too difficult to do anything less.</p>
<p>Otherwise, trickysocksman got it. And bgp9998, if we gave admissions breaks to recruited athletes, they would likely burn out or fail out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech absolutely does not, under any circumstances, practice AA. There is no advantage to being a girl or minority whatsoever in admissions. Admitted minorities do get some nice scholarships though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I ask to see some statistics that support this claim. It very well may be true--but we can't say unless we see some released statistics on it. AFAIK, Caltech does not release them. Perhaps Ben knows.</p>
<p>I don't think such statistics exist, although I could be wrong. I don't really want to get into statistics unless I have to, especially since research and math/science teams don't show up in statistics, and those things play a very large role in admissions here. Also, Caltech has a rather small sample size . . .</p>
<p>I can tell you though, that the 4 undergraduates I know on the admissions committee are all unanimous in saying that they do not consider gender in admissions. Considering they actually read, judge, and recommend applicants, and discuss them with the whole committee, I would consider their word to be reliable. I guess I could go find one and ask them what they think about the stats thing. And Ben's gone now. He went up north somewhere.</p>
<p>personally, i think the easiest way for a person who isnt directly involved in admissions to make their own judgment is just to go off of who they know personally.</p>
<p>i, a to be caltech hopeful, have paid attention to the admissions of results of many of my elders (id say my school is a feeder to caltech, with 7 admits in the last 4 years, if that qualifies haha), and from what ive seen personally, the best profiles of rejected applicants were gender mixed, male and female alike. i do agree with dauntless, based on conversations that ive had with friends who go to caltech, that anyone who isnt admitted under ordinary standards could never hope to do well at caltech. however, of all of the girls that i know who go there, none are having difficulties with the school that are out of the ordinary.</p>
<p>conversely, with the urm that i know that goes to mit, he failed a large majority of his classes his freshman year. while i have no doubt that many of mits urm students are just as qualified as caucasian and orm students, the way that they emphasize a students perceived potential always sets up a situation where the student ends up on track to fail. </p>
<p>with regards to admissions however, i know some girls who (based on what i could see) were admitted but notice that guys with similar qualifications seem to always be rejected. i know an orm (ethnicity wise anyways) girl who has stellar stats (typical 2300ish, 4.0, good but not eye-opening ecs) who got in while her father was the head of the physics department at our local state university get in over a similarly affluent orm male with better stats, better ecs, but having parents with no math/science backgrounds. </p>
<p>thus the conclusion that i logically obtain is that regardless of how much each school factors gender into the equation that mit gives it a bigger emphasis than caltech does.</p>
<p>the most important idea is that with someone who gets into caltech, they seemingly will always have the genuine ability to succeed and do well there, male or female. however, some mit students seem to have harder times doing as well and adjusting. the bottom line is that a truly objective school will almost always set its students up for success, and thats the most important factor in the end. </p>
<p>the argument against caltech in this situation is that caltech is not as forgiving as mit for a student's uncontrollable circumstances. i know that, although i live in an area with limited opportunities, both in class and out of class, that its hard to get in without nearly perfect math and science scores (which thankfully i have). if i werent an orm, these opportunities would undoubtedly give me a big leg up in mit admissions, but overall the efficacy of the admissions is highly subjective and for one to decide for him or herself.</p>
<p>my argument is overtly partial, but thats just the mindset that ive developed as a to be hopeful of both schools, an orm, and a socal resident. obviously neither school has a "better" way of selecting students, but overall they are certainly different.</p>
<p>do be forgiving of my probably poor grammar and disorganized thoughts. its hard to think as well late at night</p>
<p>trickysockman, I was reading your post and agreed with some of the stuff you said until
[Quote]
conversely, with the urm that i know that goes to mit, he failed a large majority of his classes his freshman year. while i have no doubt that many of mits urm students are just as qualified as caucasian and orm students, the way that they emphasize a students perceived potential always sets up a situation where the student ends up on track to fail.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>and
[Quote]
the most important idea is that with someone who gets into caltech, they seemingly will always have the genuine ability to succeed and do well there, male or female. however, some mit students seem to have harder times doing as well and adjusting. the bottom line is that a truly objective school will almost always set its students up for success, and thats the most important factor in the end.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>While I no doubt agree that admitting someone to Caltech under "different" criteria would be setting up a student for failure, I think you are being overly harsh on MIT here. When they say they don't admit kids who can't do the work, I truly believe they mean it. There is no "easy" major at MIT unlike its peers HYPS. From what I've heard from MIT students, the difference in achievement (once the students get there) between members of all races are rather negligible, if any. Additionally, MIT isn't "setting a student up to fail" by "recognizing their potential". That would be rather counter-productive and last I checked its six year graduation rate is 92%, very high for a math/science/and engineering school, higher than Caltech's which supposedly admits only the brightest and best in its applicant pool. I will concede that MIT will give more slack in the way of SAT scores but MIT knows that even if students are behind their freshman year due to high school preparation that by the end of the first year they'll be pretty much even. I think for this reason, and others, MIT has the P/F option for the first year. I don't think anyone, MIT or students, are suffering from MIT's admission policy.</p>
<p>While I dont know if there are any claims by their administration as to whether or not Caltech practices AA, admission patterns when comparing top students from both schools have typically suggested its at least less enforced at say MIT. This would likely be the cause behind the sausage-fest ratio mentioned in James' post.</p>
<p>Actually, with this year's incoming freshman class, Caltech will now have a 2:1 guy to girl ratio :)</p>
<p>
Actually, I conclude that the smaller female applicant pool at Caltech is more self-selected and more qualified on average than the male applicant pool. I don't think it's necessary to cast doubt on Caltech's announced admissions policy.</p>
<p>
I've known a number of people who failed one or several classes freshman year, and I can't perceive any pattern of race in that group of people. It's not terribly uncommon to fail a class or more freshman year -- that's why first term is pass/no record and second term is A/B/C/no record, so that if a student fails a class it doesn't show up on his or her transcript.</p>
<p>
[quote]
personally, i think the easiest way for a person who isnt directly involved in admissions to make their own judgment is just to go off of who they know personally.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The plural of anecdote is not data.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've known a number of people who failed one or several classes freshman year, and I can't perceive any pattern of race in that group of people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Same here. Gender, either. If we're going to go ahead with the anecdata game, I imagine that Mollie and I have a much bigger sample size for our anecdata than you.</p>
<p>MIT admissions is clearly more holistic than Caltech's, practicing AA and perhaps taking gender into account to a certain extent. There are a number of people from my HS who got either WL or accepted to MIT who would never have had much of a chance at Caltech. I do know that at certain MIT events, AA for girls has been discussed/implied... This is not to say that there aren't many women at MIT who gained acceptance without the help of AA.</p>