<p>is it true the male to female in acceptance at mit is about 1:3?</p>
<p>let's just say that more males apply to mit than females making the applicant pool more competitive for males considering that the sex ratio at mit is about 1:1.</p>
<p>Is it 1:1 though? I thought it was more like 3:2? About 60-40?</p>
<p>i'm pretty sure it isn't 1:1... the sex ratio is.</p>
<p>The Class of '09 is 47% female, 53% male. Haven't seen the statistics for Class of '10 yet, but it's likely to be similar.</p>
<p>Just as a warning (and we're not starting a flame war about this, either), Ben Jones has stated on this forum several times that the female applicant pool is more competitive than the male applicant pool -- that the females who apply to MIT are more qualified than many of the males who apply.</p>
<p>So if you're applying as a female, know that you're in a pool of women who have some pretty awesome achievements.</p>
<p>Statistics do not mean much when things come to the gender factor in admissions, I guess. It might be better not to compare females with males at this point...</p>
<p>I think when you find people saying that statistics do not say much about a controversial issue, you should raise at least one eyebrow. :-)</p>
<p>I think statistics are always meaningful, but only when interpreted correctly, which the majority of people do not do well.</p>
<p>There's this public service announcement poster on the T that drives me absolutely up the wall -- it says that kids who begin drinking before the age of 15 are five times more likely to become alcoholics than kids who wait until they're 21. Ergo, keep your kid away from alcohol.</p>
<p>I have no doubt those are true facts, but I really disagree with the conclusion -- I mean, kids who start drinking before the age of 15 are disproportionately more likely to have alcohol in the home, and are probably disproportionately likely to be the children of alcoholics; kids who don't drink until they're 21 are disproportionately likely to be rigid and uptight and law-abiding for the sake of being law-abiding. I don't think either of those populations tells you much about what it means for the average American kid to take a drink of alcohol in his teens.</p>
<p>I love statistics. But you have to consider the variables you're not seeing, and you can't just beat people over the head with context-free numbers.</p>
<p><-- agrees wholeheartedly.</p>
<p>Female applicants may be more qualified, I don't know, but that's what is reported by people in the admissions department. How much? Who knows.</p>
<p>Remember that there is a lot of political pressure to claim that every racial and gender group has the same average ability (mentally only, we are allowed to admit different physical differences--maybe because we can physically see them?).</p>
<p>I like when people say true things... it seems to me that you have to bend the limits of plausibility pretty heavily to believe in a broad mental parity across genders/races/ethnicities/cultures. When did we decide that all groups being equal in all mental respects was a good thing in the first place?</p>
<p>
[quote]
When did we decide that all groups being equal in all mental respects was a good thing in the first place?
[/quote]
Maybe not all/all, but I recall vividly the first day of 8th grade when Mr. Ashworth informed my chemistry class that he was pairing us off in boy-girl lab teams, "... so the boys can do the science and the girls can wash the test tubes." Lucky for me, Mr. Ashworth was also the wrestling coach and my assigned lab partner was a star wrestler, so they chatted about wrestling and I got to do the science <em>AND</em> clean the test tubes. ;)</p>
<p>Seriously, though, realizing with such startling clarity in a single moment that there were academic things people thought I couldn't do simply because of my gender was a pivotal moment. I may not have decided all groups were or should be equal in all mental respects, but I experienced the shock of realizing I was thought to be a second-class learner, and that was a powerful thing.</p>
<p>Ben, I am not sure what you are saying, are you saying it is unrealistic that there would be non-negligible differences between groups?</p>
<p>Just something to keep in mind while reading chances threads: For the old SAT the following scores would be of the same percentile, ( we are assuming no actual intelligence difference between the groups), and thus equivalent.</p>
<pre><code>Group Score Difference from top
</code></pre>
<p>Asian male- 1500 0
White male- 1475 -25
Asian female- 1465 -35
Hispanic male- 1465 -35
White female- 1433 -67
Hispanic female- 1415 -85
Black male- 1288 -212
Black female- 1276 -224</p>
<p>Since chances threads are dominated by SAT scores, keep in mind that these scores would be viewed as equal. I will not, repeat not, get into an argument as to the nature and reasons for this difference. It is just the nationwide averages for 2002.</p>
<p>... wow, that is a very good point, akdaddy</p>
<p>are you going to whine, or are you going to retake the SAT and upgrade your bracket?</p>
<p>Those are the national averages, but I wonder what the averages are for each group among the MIT applicants... average SAT of the Asian male MIT applicant, average of the white male MIT applicant, average of the Hispanic female *MIT applicant<a href="you%20get%20my%20drift">/i</a>... and then those same statistics among those accepted. SAT averages don't really have that much insight to offer about the difference between a white female and an Asian male who both have 1600s (or 2400s, as it were). And I can guarantee that most of the girls I know who were not "too intimidated" to apply to MIT had darn near 2400s. I don't know why I'm jumping into this topic again <em>sighs</em></p>
<p>kcastelle, I totally think you'd win in a thinly-veiled sarcasm contest.</p>
<p>don't worry, nobody cares about stats :)</p>
<p>I hope so lol! It's my secret goal in life ;) </p>
<p>I really am done now. I promise. <em>shifty-eyed glance around</em></p>