<p>People have been telling me that females have a better shot, other factors being essentially equal-- when it comes to admission to programs at MIT and other schools. comments???? Thanks...I have a niece looking to transfer to MIT ---or Johns Hopkins as well. This message board is invaluable. Thanks.</p>
<p>females have 2.5 times the admission rate that males have...</p>
<p>Hate to need more.. but what does that mean?? They accept 10 females for every five males? Same SAT scores.. the chances are 250 percent more likely that the female will be admitted???Thanks...</p>
<p>I think Ben and Matt made it clear that females are not given any edge in admissions.</p>
<p>H, when did Ben and matt reply to this.. I have not seen it addressed by them.. thanks</p>
<p>I'm no expert, but from what I've heard, MIT is no longer giving much influence to gender, ethnicity, geographics, legacy, etc, or even perfect test scores or grades. They are looking for students who can demonstrate a very high level of passion about some thing (not necessarily math or science even). Also, if an applicant shows that they have taken risks and even failed at trying things, then MIT feels this person would fit into what MIT wants to be as a culture. It seems like MIT is not selecting students like Ivies & LACs do.</p>
<p>What does this mean? I think it means how you answered the essay question "what do you do for fun?" is very important. Also, your recommendation letters and the interview would be important.</p>
<p>Please take theleet's comments with a grain of salt - he's the resident bitter-deferree.</p>
<p>It's been said before and I suppose I'll say it again: admissions is never as black and white as numbers can sometimes make it seem. I can't even imagine trying to build a class of 1000 from over 10,000 applications. MIT does look for diversity. In my opinion, though, they look for diversity in terms of thought and experience more so than in terms of skin shade or the pairing on the 23rd chromosome. </p>
<p>Relative % of applicants admitted from a pool (girls vs. guys, whites vs. blacks) != relative selectivity. Note: I do seem to notice that pure-academic male applicants have a lot harder time in admissions than pure-academic female applicants. I suppose there's just a whole lot more guys who shape their resumes into what they believe MIT wants to see than there are girls. More guys dream MIT than girls do as well - look at the difference in yield. If we like to play with facts and figures so much, shouldn't a lower yield indicate a stronger admit pool (presented with more options come april)? </p>
<p>We know that's not the case, so we need to be careful about how we interpret "numbers".</p>
<p>Oops. To answer the OP's questions: Theleet is correct, statistically, a random girl from the applicant pool would have double the chance of admission than do a guy. I think it's something like 12% for guys and 25% for girls. Problem arises with this prerequisite: "other factors being essentially equal" -- I don't believe there is such a thing. Especially comparing males to females and whites to blacks. Even if two applicants were statistically identical (SAT scores, grades, classes) and similar in level and commitment of Extra Curriculars, the essays will set them apart. One may have had an uphill battle to achieve all they have achieved while the other could have had all his/her opportunities handed to him/her. This is where the numbers become fuzzy - expectations of society, family financial circumstances, personal motivation and drive vs. parental pressure. We realize these two "essentially equal" applicants cannot be more opposite. So, no, we cannot tell you how any girl would fare in the application process based on a few stats - I don't think anyone can deny that the female applicant pool is more self-selective to tech schools.</p>
<p>To nervous juniors and disgruntled seniors: It's what happens when so many compete for so few spots. The vast majority of worthy applicants are turned away without a specific reason other than the fact that they just did not hand in the one application out of ten that stood out. Instead of pitting ourselves against another race or gender and measuring our chances that way, we should take a few long, hard looks at ourselves and, through our applications, sketch the individual that we all are - exactly as we are. Looking around, I've realized that you don't have to be extraordinary to get into the "elites", you have to be real. Show yourself as a living, breathing human being peeking out behind the mass of numbers and paperwork and you have a good shot at finding the place just right for you - you may not get into your top-choice school or what you deem to be the "best" schools, but since when have 17-year-olds ever known what was the best for them? ;)</p>
<p>phew. those were long... -shakes out hands-</p>
<p>by the way</p>
<p>"Being a girl should indeed give you an advantage at top engineering schools. For instance, for the fall of 2003, MIT had 10,549 applicants. Of these, only 2,898 were female. MIT accepted 29.3% of its female candidates but only 11.6 % of the males."</p>
<p>Fall 2002 statistics:</p>
<p>"US News info for Fall 2002:
acceptance rate: 14% EA, 16% overall
EA acceptances make up 28% of freshman class
10664 applied, 1724 accepted, 978 enrolled
males: 7696 applied, 898 accepted (11.2%), 558 enrolled
females: 2968 applied, 826 accepted (27.8%), 420 enrolled
out of state: 91%
379 on waitlist, 296 accepted place on waitlist, 37 enrolled from waitlist
middle 50% SAT verbal: 680 to 760
middle 50% SAT math: 740 to 800"</p>
<p>Not just 2 times the chance, 2.5 times the chance...</p>
<p>Take the numbers as you will. I'm not going to pretend to know what I'm talking about like pebbles does. Nor will I reinforce stereotypes as she does.</p>
<p>"I suppose there's just a whole lot more guys who shape their resumes into what they believe MIT wants to see than there are girls."</p>
<p>So all males are "resume shapers" and all females aren't? </p>
<p>ASSertions without proof = lies.</p>
<p>theleet, you'll notice in the statistics you posted that far less females even applied in the first place. MIT is often touted as having a self-selecting applicant pool - unlike Harvard or others, which entertain applications from just about everyone under the sun, irrespective of applicants' candicacy for admission.</p>
<p>Could it be, perhaps, that due to social stigmas about females "doing a man's job" (or other such factors), only the most qualified and determined females even bother applying to an engineering school in the first place? Perhaps, therefore, the <em>average</em> female applicant to MIT is more qualified than the <em>average</em> male applicant to MIT, and thus more are admitted?</p>
<p>@LSA</p>
<p>Well, it wouldn't be PC for them to tell the truth, so they won't give it to you. Look how long Matt dodged the truth when Another Asian Boy hunted him down for Asian male statistics.</p>
<p>@ LSA x2</p>
<p>Like I said, pull whatever you want from the statistics. I don't have enough information to make a conclusion, nor do I pretend to. You can speculate all you want for or against, I merely present the information that I and others have found.</p>
<p>Well, okay, then it seems you're making a lot of fuss about a simple percentage of admitted female applicants (vs. admitted males), when you don't know the context. I don't pretend to know the context, either - but my thoughts are above. A mere number isn't so useful when we don't know the story behind these female applicants. The successful ones I've met, anyway, seem pretty cool. If anything, I'd dare to venture that their offers of admission were more deserved than some of the males', knowing their individual contexts and all ......</p>
<p>I never said the numbers alone were the answer either...</p>
<p>Well, no, but by offering only the numbers (and no other supporting details) in post #2 of this thread, you sort of imply that. :-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) It is
extremely
difficult to transfer in to MIT. I think only 7 transfers were accepted last year.
2) This selectivity argument going on (male vs female) -
selectivity
is the most useless statistic. Interesting for arguments and maybe for bragging, but utterly useless.</p>
<p>Does MIT pay a lot of attention to MIT faculty member recommendations of applicants??? I know this is a simple and dumb sounding question-- but i am just wondering if that is kind of thing that brings about a good hard look.. most other things being solid and impressive. thanks</p>
<p>"I suppose there's just a whole lot more guys who shape their resumes into what they believe MIT wants to see than there are girls. More guys dream MIT than girls...."</p>
<p>I offered my reasoning in the next sentence. If it was interpreted as a blanket attack on male applicants, I absolutely apologize. It was not meant as such.</p>
<p>haha I actually get along with guys much easier than I get along with girls, and I enjoy their company much more overall. Just because I defend the female students and would-be-students at MIT does not mean I'm a feminist. You've made your fair share of assumptions in the past theleet - why all of a sudden the "holier-than-thou" attitude?</p>
<p>I get cocky and presumptuous at times. Actually, quite often :\ but I'm willing to admit it :P</p>
<hr>
<p>I found this interesting.... shows how fickle numbers can be.... Princeton, is by no means easy to get into early.</p>