<p>Okay, between MIT and CalTech is is easier to get into Caltech? I was wondering because I was looking at admission statistics, and CalTech admitted 17%, while MIT admitted 13%? I can't find the actual numbers, but I imagine more people applied to MIT? Comments?</p>
<p>The Caltech applicant pool is probably more self-selective, since it has less name recognition and a more restricted choice of studies -- so there will be very many kids applying who are highly qualified in the sciences, highly enough to want to pursue them as careers.</p>
<p>Plus, depending on where you stand demographically, keep in mind that Caltech doesn't practice Affirmative Action, while MIT does, so that might also affect your chances for better or worse.</p>
<p>There are definitely more people who apply to MIT because of the name and because its aggressive (and admirable) outreach efforts. Caltech is a more 'Ivory tower' place in some respects and so attracts a narrower range of applicants. There are definitely some people that get into Caltech which MIT rejects in droves, and also there are kids who get into MIT that Caltech wouldn't admit in a hundred years. I would say which is harder to get into depends a lot on who you are, and it's hard to make a strict ranking of who is more selective.</p>
<p>Oh good, no affirmative action!! :P</p>
<p>When my friends and I was applying to MIT, I kept track of my friends' admission results. Out of 14 guys, 1 was accepted (he is black); out of 8 girls, 7 were accepted. There were a lot of guys besides myself who were rejected from MIT but accepted to Caltech, probably because of MIT's affirmative action.</p>
<p>Hmm interesting G2</p>
<p>As a girl rejected from MIT but accepted to Caltech, I can safely say it isn't only the AA. ;) But yeah, Caltech isn't 'less selective', most likely -- it's just a slightly different applicant pool combined with different criteria.</p>
<p>No Affirmative action? I highly doubt it- even if they explicitly state that on their website. Like every other top school they're probably looking for a racially/ethnically diverse student body... Standards will probably be lowered for say, blacks, since there aren't SEVERAL high-performing blacks in the country. no? I'm not at cal tech so please fill me in...</p>
<p>racnna.... did u just say there aren't several high performing blacks????? there are thousands.....now quit hating on the system.</p>
<p>first off i am black.
. I wouldn't say 1000's is 'several' at all. But seriously Cal tech doesn't practice AA? I'm curious coz i'm applying this spring...</p>
<p>No, we're all asian males here...every single one of us. :-P</p>
<p>If you aren't familiar with Caltech admissions policies, they're notably more merit-based than other schools. That said, I'm worried that the core admissions values are slowly fading. There's talk of introducing "holistic" admissions...a "committee" is investigating changing admissions (or something like that, it was in The Tech a while back)...IMO, diversity is <em>great</em> and we need more of it, but this sounds suspiciously like a PR-buffered transition away from the strictly fair admissions practices we have been touting. </p>
<p>I hope I'm wrong...</p>
<p>Edit, found the article</a> in question</p>
<p>
[quote]
Despite the proclaimed success of the latest round of admissions, President Chameau has formed an Admissions Task Force charged with reevaluating the current admissions process. The task force is comprised of staff, faculty, and students, with Michael Woods and Maria Gutowski representing the undergraduates.</p>
<p>The task force is** concerned with determining how Caltech can best enroll minorities and women, and whether admissions should take into account a holistic view of the class**, but Bischoff said that, "No one is suggesting a radical departure from the way admissions is currently done."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mike - since you post on these boards, please tell me that's not what it sounds like.</p>
<p>Hmmmm, well I hope not. Who needs minorities and women?! :P</p>
<p>Haha :P Well I mean, of course we do, but this sounds a lot like heading towards what MIT currently does, which is something which we've always drawn contrast with.</p>
<p>since Caltech isn't practicing affirmative action,
is it to my advantage to apply for it since I'm an asian male + international student? (I'm debating on applying EA caltech or SCEA stanford since I'm not allowed to apply EA MIT)</p>
<p>Thank god there are other techers who are also concerned by the proposed changes. Chameau's (overly) long commencement speech mentioned that he's for increasing diversity...</p>
<p>Anyways, relative to MIT, Caltech is substatantially easier for an asian male to get admitted into. If you fall into this category and want to get into MIT, your best bet is to portray yourself as the anti-nerd (at least this was true during M. Jones' tenure, so whether this is still recommended is questionable).</p>
<p>Despite being each other's main competition, they have incredibly different Admissions strategies.</p>
<p>MIT - not really based on academic factors. Extensive use of gender and race based Affirmative Action, "unofficial" sports recruitment (and lots of it)</p>
<p>Caltech - straightfoward. Admit the top x% of applicants, academically. No official use of AA (although it does probably have a minor impact)</p>
<p>I doubt that MIT is recruiting athletes in the usual sense of trying to make their sports teams better. I think they do give credit for it like they would any extracurricular activity. If they do recruit, it's interesting that their division I team (crew) hasn't improved.</p>
<p>Anyway, it's really sad that people think they have to be the "anti-nerd" and that MIT admisssions is not straightforward. I can tell you that 10 years ago, MIT's admission policies were very straightforward and you could pretty much predict who would get in. At the very least, it was clear who MIT would prefer among candidates from the same high school. I think you are overestimating the effects of AA, though. The current trend has more to do with Jones' vision of what MIT admits should be like than it does gender/racial preference.</p>
<p>It's preposterous to think that Caltech has a simple 'admit the top x% of applicants' or that MIT doesn't really select on academic factors. If you want a place that admits a simple top percentage, you'd have to move to China. Caltech gets many applicants who are practically equal in scores, grades, extracurriculars, etc. and so has to make subjective admissions decisions. (The exact qualifications for these subjective decisions is what the committee was set up to review, NOT to lower academic standards or adopt AA style admissions.)
I also don't think all of the MIT hating is necessary. MIT gets approximately seven times the applicants for a class approximately five times larger than Caltech's and therefore has more headroom to set subjective standards without necessarily lowering their academic standards. I'm not endorsing their AA policy here, but there are good reasons for it and those need to be acknowledged.
Finally, to suggest that 13% vs. 17% admissions rate correlates to some meaningful difference in the quality of the schools is ridiculous. See the numbers above.</p>
<p>"It's preposterous to think that Caltech has a simple 'admit the top x% of applicants' "</p>
<p>^^I'm pretty sure they meant that in the holistic sense.</p>
<p>My d was accepted to both; it is very difficult to say that one school has higher standards than the other. A few SAT points different does amount to a hill of beans. Both schools have some (if not the toughest) of the toughest standards to get accepted. While it is perceived that AA affects one school and not the other, smaller student body affects the other. Both schools are looking for candidates that will enhance the student body and will contribute to the university as a whole. There are unique qualities associated to each school and I am sure that those items factor into their decision process when they are offering admissions. I also believe that the application submitted has a lot to do with the decisions. Both schools read the applications very carefully and try to picture how the student will fit into their class. Male to female student ratio is something that is factored and can be one of the class criteria (whether is helps or hurts) when admissions make their decisions. Both schools will consider minority students, regardless of SAT scores (if they are reasonably close) because this provides the diversity that all college campuses seek.
Both are equally hard to get accepted to, both are equally great schools. If one was to be chosen as which was harder - I would have to say MIT was harder (maybe because gender).</p>