Gender Bias in Acceptance: Opinions?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvey Mudd College
1

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>As we know, since Maria Klawe's "Women in STEM" campaign (started in 2006) Harvey Mudd has aimed for a 50-50 gender balance. As a result, women have a far higher acceptance rate than men. </p>

<p>~14.4% of men are accepted
~38% of women are accepted.
Source: <a href="http://www.parchment.com/c/college/college-545-harvey-mudd-college.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.parchment.com/c/college/college-545-harvey-mudd-college.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In addition, Harvey Mudd has a policy of flying in accepted women and writing handwritten notes to women who are accepted.</p>

<p>What is your opinion on this policy? Do you believe that it is unfair (gender discrimination) or justified? Obviously, men have a higher bar for admission.</p>

<p>Look forward to hearing your thoughts.</p>

2

<p>I have heard that the men at Mudd are MUCH happier with the current gender balance than the way it used to be. And I know my D chose Mudd partially because it has a better gender balance than any other top STEM school; she wanted to have classes with other women and liked the women professors she met there. </p>

<p>I don’t know that the bar for admission is higher for men – just literally don’t know the statistics between the two different applicant pools. My D, for example, had 2380 SATs, and subject tests of 800 Math II and 800 Lit. You probably won’t find too many people of either gender with higher scores even there. And she is finding her classwork to be tremendously challenging and her classmates (both genders) to be insanely smart. The bar is pretty high for everybody to get into Mudd, regardless of gender. They have the luxury of picking from a highly qualified pool of applicants – I don’t see anything wrong with one of their criteria to try to have a somewhat balanced gender pool. Top LACs (non-STEM) currently give preferential treatment to men (higher acceptance rates for male students at most of them), and I also see nothing wrong with that. Holistic admissions are the norm at most schools these days, admission isn’t done strictly on test scores at any top schools any more.</p>

3

<p>I have a son and agree with intparent. There are so many top kids to choose from, there is nothing lost by making gender one of the deciding factors. It would be different if adding all those women meant they needed to have a separate remedial class for women, but that isn’t the case.</p>

<p>Also, my son, admitted a few years ago, also got a handwritten note on his acceptance letter. I do hope they haven’t made that a women-only thing. Are you sure men don’t still get that?</p>

4

<p>My son got a handwritten note. And the reason that the percentage acceptance for women is higher is simply because there are still fewer women applying and there is self-selection. Like the men who apply, for the most part, the women who apply are highly qualified and really interested in Mudd. It is still a risk for women to go into a STEM school The Mudd students, both male and female, that I have met are incredible. There certainly is no lowering of standards by increasing the number of women or discrimination against men because the women have been admitted --which seems to be the issue underlying the question of the original post</p>

5

<p>The college’s attitude toward accepting women is similar to their attitude toward accepting minorities. I believe many minority students are given handwritten letters and phone calls from professors as well. I can see how this can be frustrating to applicants who are male and not minority students, but I think the idea of creating a more welcoming environment for women and minorities at a competitive STEM school is great.</p>

6

<p>So, I feel this question is a bit a of ■■■■■■■■ that maybe I shouldn’t respond to seriously, but I’m going to anyway. And, I need coffee, so please excuse any typos.</p>

<p>I’m a parent of two recent HMC students - female & URM’s (minorities). Neither recall getting handwritten letters (the note at the bottom of their acceptance letter, which I believe almost every admit gets, yes) after acceptance or personal phone calls. There was some being flown out, but that had to do with an applied for scholarship competition.</p>

<p>The part of Duelix query that bothers me too is the: “Obviously, men have a higher bar for admission.”
I would argue that is untrue - the implication being that to be accepted, men have to be somehow “better” than women. </p>

<p>Here are the stats from another site: [Harvey</a> Mudd College Admissions Information - CollegeData College Profile](<a href=“http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=850]Harvey”>Harvey Mudd College Acceptance Rate | CollegeData)</p>

<p>Overall Admission Rate 19% of 3,336 applicants were admitted
Women 37% of 889 applicants were admitted
Men 13% of 2,447 applicants were admitted
Students Enrolled 198 (31%) of 642 admitted students enrolled
Women 95 (29%) of 331 admitted students enrolled
Men 103 (33%) of 311 admitted students enrolled
And math stats of the enrolled:
SAT Math 763 average
740-800 range of middle 50%
Score of 700 - 800
91%
Score of 600 - 700
9%</p>

<p>As you can see the bar for all enrolled students at Mudd is pretty high. I’m not a math wiz so I’m not going to present an argument about the gender or ethnicity of those 9% of those students whose math sat scores fell under the 700 range (I’m going to guess that they can’t be all women/urms). I will say that my minority female admits scored better than the Mudd enrolled math SAT average. </p>

<p>And, I think a quick look at the number of women applying 889 compared to the number of men 2,447, and with the number of each who actually enroll, gives a clear story of why the admissions rate is higher for women. HMC just has fewer qualified women to choose from - such is the self selection that only the really qualified women probably apply to HMC. I know that the only 3 girls from my older daughters’ high school who did apply - were all accepted. Only my daughter went to Mudd, the other two chose Princeton & Stanford. </p>

<p>So yes, similarly qualified men will have more competition than the women for acceptance at Mudd. But, Mudd is a co-ed school and gender parity, without sacrificing quality, is a fine goal I think. And, I think that the admissions folks don’t even have to try hard to chose wonderful, qualified women.
Side note: I once asked the dean of students at Mudd why they had such a hard time raising the number of black students at Mudd (when my older daughter started, you could easily fit all the black students at Mudd into a minivan and drive them for ice cream. Not that I did…) And, she told me that there just weren’t that many black high school students that tested well enough on the SAT for admission to Mudd. She gave me a shocking low number - which to my horror I could confirm. I’m convinced Mudd has standards they don’t lower for admissions, even to meet their diversity goals.</p>

<p>ok, time for coffee.</p>

7

<p>I’m not trolling. I haven’t posted any opinion of my own for a reason: as a male student applying to Harvey Mudd, I have a conflict of interest. </p>

<p>Obviously, there are many very very qualified females applying as well as many very qualified males. These people will get in regardless of their gender. </p>

<p>When Mudd had a gender blind policy (did it?), there was a large skew in the student body: there were far more males than females. It is mere statistics to show that women now have an easier time getting in, although we lack access to detailed data to figure out how much easier.</p>

<p>There isn’t any set point as “qualified.” Obviously, applicants have gradients of desirability. Admissions counselors will accept the most desirable students to approximate the correct enrollment numbers. The question is of what makes a potential student desirable. </p>

<p>As for the “handwritten notes” policy, I may be incorrect. I apologize. </p>

<p>Under any case, I won’t be complaining if I’m rejected (or blaming it on “gender discrimination”). I’m just interested in hearing opinions. As far as I can see, I’m a mediocre applicant and I frankly could have done more with myself during my high school years. Looking at the achievements of admitted students (both male and female) I can honestly say that I’ve been humbled. </p>

<p>Anyway thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses.</p>

8

<p>I think the handwritten letters to minority students thing might be relatively new. I’m not sure if they do that for women because I am female and I didn’t get one. Also, some women and minority students get invited to the “summer institute” which gives the students a headstart on college life before freshman year starts. I don’t know how they choose who to invite to that because I didn’t get an invite and of course not every female or minority student would.</p>

9

<p>My daughter’s roommate freshman year (Asian female from California) was invited to a summer institute session, I think it was a writing session of some kind. My D was not invited. I think maybe that particular session is for kids they thought based on test scores and grades might struggle with the writing aspects of college? My D didn’t need it, but I heard the kids who did it earned course credit for it – I am a little envious for that reason, as it sure would be good given the stressful course load for my D to have a little credit cushion…</p>

10

<p>My son started the year that Summer Institute began its current format. He applied for SI and got in, and his writing, while acceptable, wasn’t that great. At SI, he took the standard freshman writing course over the summer and got credit for it as if he had taken it during the semester.</p>

<p>At that time, they had made noises about it being an invitation thing.</p>

11

<p>I personally know a white male who was admitted with a Math SAT below 700. And he graduated at the top of the class. So don’t make any assumptions about the 9% with SAT Math below 700. It is a factor of the wholistic admissions process at Mudd, not a lowering of standards. Mudd is looking for talented, extremely smart, creative folks. Some of those don’t do well on standardized tests. But they evidence their talents in other ways.</p>

12

<p>Hi All again – for anyone willing to read something this long…,</p>

<p>First –
Duelix – don’t count yourself out. HMC does look at the whole student, and I don’t know you, but you might have just the qualities they are looking for. And, of course, if not HMC then another college, one that might be even a better fit will be there for you. Good Luck!</p>

<hr>

<p>As for SI - both my D’s at Mudd have participated. My older D went to SI when it was by application and didn’t not have any academic component, except for a few seminars to see what different majors had to offer. I thought it was a summer camp experience, just a way for some admits to feel more connected to the school. I know of admits who didn’t even apply just because they wanted to go on the Pre-O hike instead and it conflicted. </p>

<p>Now, it there is a stipend, it’s academic and invite only I believe. My freshman D who went this year, scored over 700 on the SAT in both the Writing & Reading Comp sections. That said, Writ 1, which is what they take at SI, is challenging for almost all incoming freshman and she had to work hard to pass, as any student during the regular school year. And, the days at SI are just packed with other activities, so it wasn’t a vacation. In fact my older D said she felt a little sorry for the kids at the new version SI, because they always looked stressed out by having to pass Writ 1 (my older D did research on campus during the summers) and when she went it was just fun. Also, my fresh D still took 17.5 units this past semester and high passed 3!</p>

<p>Oh, and HMC, as well as many other colleges, likes to accept siblings if they are qualified. So, that probably helped my second child too. Although she was also accepted to Olin, an ideologically similar school.</p>

<p>Anyway, this train of thought always rankles me, because no matter who intelligent or hard working women/minorities are in their fields, there are always those who feel the need to question why and how they achieved. My younger D, who had to take college level math her senior year of HS because she had tapped out all the math courses offered – was told back in middle school by a teacher that she didn’t have the “personality” to do the higher track of math offered. We ignored him. But, that is what women/minorities often face. That is what HMC is so great in counteracting. Yes, the desire to admit more women/minorities into STEM fields is helpful for my daughters personally, but they are working hard. Once they are at HMC, they aren’t given an easier track to take.</p>

13

<p>First: DS (white male) received a handwritten note on his HMC acceptance letter 6 years ago (as well as on other acceptance letters; it’s pretty common, though it does make the kids feel special at the time!)</p>

<p>Second: Olin deals with these types of questions all the time, since they also strive for gender balance. In terms of sheer numbers-yes, there are more men applying, which makes their chances statistically smaller. BUT, the girls being accepted are in no way less qualified–not even remotely. Remember, the girls who are applying to an HMC or an Olin are already flying in the face of societal norms with regard to girls and STEM. Most everything has been well said by Mom2Kids…I can’t really add anything but to mention that (in our experience) the girls who are graduating from Olin are achieving at a very high level, taking home the most NSF grants, the most Fulbrights and being accepted to wonderful grad schools and offered great jobs. But they still haven’t reached the tipping point in representation in STEM jobs…there is still rampant sexism when the get to the workplace. It is to HMC’s and Olin’s credit that they are striving for more gender balance. And it will be beneficial to all of us when it is achieved…and I am saying this as the mother of a son in engineering!! My DD is in Humanities (dominated by women) and still faces sexism daily in myriad ways.</p>

14

<p>The answer to OP’s question depends on the definition of fair. If you assume that the applicant pools for men and women have the same distribution of qualifications on paper (same distribution of test scores, extracurriculars, GPAs, essay quality, etc), and that admissions decisions should be made exclusively on the basis of the paper application, then “fair” means admitting more students from the majority gender. The stats reported by Mom2kids show that about 11 more women than men were admitted, but male applicants outnumbered female applicants by a factor of 2.75:1. With those definitions and assumptions, HMC’s admissions are unfair.</p>

<p>This is by far the most common definition that’s used in these sorts of discussions. There’s a lot to like - admissions can be analyzed statistically, the data tends to be available (at least in principle), and the definition appeals to the modern assertion that men and women are equally capable of learning STEM material (as opposed to the historical one that claims that men are better at STEM, and women are better at the humanities).</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I think this is a poor definition of fair, particularly in Mudd’s case, for the following reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>It assumes that male and female applicants are equally qualified. For many schools, this is more likely to be true. For Mudd, I strongly suspect that the female applicants are more qualified due self-selection. As Mom2kids alluded to, there is substantial societal pressure for women to not pursue a STEM education. There is explicit gender discrimination where some women are flat-out told that they’re not cut out for a STEM career. Another major problem is perceptions, driven by our day-to-day experiences. Overall there are fewer women than men at most levels of STEM, starting from advanced high school courses. If you’re applying to Mudd, there’s already a lot of self-selection that goes on: there are only STEM majors, and you have to be willing to do a ton of work. If you’re also a woman, there are even more questions: “Do I want to got to Mudd, even though I will be in the minority since the gender ratio is 55/45? Do I truly believe that I can have a successful career in STEM, even though I hardly see any women in those fields? Will I be judged by my friends, adults that I know, and even my family for pursuing STEM while they think I should do something more lady-like, like art or writing?” This means that women are likely more self-selecting than men. Evidence: when I was a Mudder, I didn’t see any difference between accomplishments between the genders, but the admissions ratios were similar to what they are now.</p></li>
<li><p>It asserts that admissions decisions should be made exclusively on the basis of qualifications on paper. I disagree with this point. I believe that admissions decisions should be made on the basis of maximizing the quality of education. Part of this is admitting students that are capable of handling Mudd’s academics. Thanks to self-selection, this is the easy part. The harder part is to figure out how each student will contribute to the campus atmosphere once classes start in the fall. A growing body of evidence from psychology indicates that mixed-gender teams consistently perform better than single-gender groups. Helping everybody do well maximizes the return on the quite-expensive Mudd education.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>On the basis of these two “corrections” to the first definition, HMC’s admissions are fair. Depending on personal experiences and biases, everyone will come up with a different definition of what’s fair. For OP, who is male, seeing a much lower admissions rate for men than women is disheartening. I certainly saw it that way, and for the schools I wasn’t admitted to, it was difficult to shake the suspicion that admitting fewer women may have opened up a slot for me. On the other hand, for Mom2kids and her two daughters, it’s encouraging to see a higher admissions rate for women because that helps even out the gender ratio, leading to a Mudd community that is more likely to embrace her daughters.</p>

<p>TL;DR: Everybody gets a handwritten note. Mine was about two lines, where Klawe commented on my Common Application essay. Perhaps more qualified candidates receive longer notes.</p>

<p>TL;DR 2: I scored 680 on the SAT I Math and 640 on SAT II Biology, and I’m as white and blonde as they come. I despise the SAT I/II (and the GRE). So if a score or two falls below any particular range, there is still hope.</p>

15

<p>Duelix wrote: “It’s mere statistics to show women have an easier time getting in, although we lack acess to detailed data to figure out how much easier.”</p>

<p>The college website lists only one set of admission requirements, not one for men and a separate set for women. Women may have an easier time getting accepted than women who previously applied, but that doesn’t mean they’ll have an easier time getting accepted than men. </p>

<p>A college can decide how to split the demographics of their class, correct? Perhaps they want ‘x’ number from each region of the country, and ‘y’ in each major. They can’t accept everyone who meets those standards, they have to set a cap. If they previously had a 70/30 split between men and women and are aiming for closer to a 50/50 split, the most likely scenario from what I’ve read of the admission process is this: each regional chair will compile the records of all the qualified applicants from their region and bring them to the table. Admission requirements are not lowered to include women; a higher number of qualified women make the cut. There’s a difference.</p>

16

<p>I don’t believe that self-selection can entirely account for the disparity. When Mudd had a gender-blind policy, far more men were admitted. Assume that the sum of everyone’s paper record (extracurriculars, GPA, test scores, essays) can be condensed to one number that describes desirability. I don’t think that there’s an arbitrary cutoff that defines “qualified.” If one had to choose between two applicants, one with a math I SAT score of 800 and one with a math I SAT score of 790, with no other information, one would obviously choose the person with the score of 800. Both scores, of course, would make a person qualified. </p>

<p>Although self-selection plays somewhat of a role, it’s inconceivable that it can account for the entire disparity.</p>

<p>For Muddslinger’s statement 1, self-selection has to have a limited impact. Mudd was gender-blind at one time, and the student body was majorly skewed towards men. I don’t think that self selection can account entirely for a 3:1 disparity. From my personal experience, women aren’t majorly discouraged from pursuing STEM (by the community). Clearly, there was a change in gender percentages in the student body following Klawe’s “Women in STEM” campaign. The only explanation for such a dramatic change is that admissions standards favor women. </p>

<p>Now my question was whether such an affirmative action policy positively impacts Harvey Mudd. I haven’t attended the school, so I don’t know; that’s why I started this thread. Judging by everyone’s experience, such a choice has had a positive impact. That’s all I wanted to know. I would say that compromising the meritocracy here has been a good choice.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry… still having trouble with this. How is accepting my D with a 2380 SAT, 800 Math II, and 800 Lit “compromising” anything? Honestly, I doubt if she would have attended Mudd if the ratio was still 3:1. I’m pretty sure she’d have gone to U of Chicago or Swarthmore instead, where she was also accepted if Mudd were still the male geek enclave it used to be. So it is possible that Mudd is drawing OVERALL a better pool of students because of the decision to seek a more balanced gender pool.</p>

18

<p>Wow. Compromising the meritocracy. Affirmative Action. Giving up gender blind admissions. All of these premises are wrong. Mudd admissions was never gender blind, or geography blind or musical talent blind or robotic champ blind or anything blind. Admissions at any school has always tried to balance the class. All that has changed is an effort to make the school more attractive to make the incredibly talented candidates who are female apply and attend if accepted. I can tell you that the incredibly talented women who attended Mudd with my son were in no way second tier talents who needed remedial help with their work to keep up with the men. I did not meet one women (and I met many) who was not awesome, and like all Mudd students, scarey smart, creative, and driven. Sure, it means that there are fewer men who were accepted. But, I am guessing that there is an equally qualified West Coast candidate who didn’t get in so an East Coast candidate could get in to balance the class. Is this the end of the meritocracy? I don’t think so. Affimative action, if it works, means that the college is affirmatively seeking out and presenting an environment where the talented and qualifed targeted group will apply, be admitted, flourish, and enhance the educational experience of the entire student body. From first hand observation, this is what Pres. Klawe’s initiative has accomplished. To assume that the women admitted are somehow “lesser” than the men is offensive. And, having a balanced gender pool attracts not just talented women, but it attracts talented men. I don’t know if my son would have gone to Mudd if it had been all male. Like intparent’s daughter, I am guessing who would have gone to school with a more interesting student body.</p>

19

<p>“Sorry… still having trouble with this. How is accepting my D with a 2380 SAT, 800 Math II, and 800 Lit “compromising” anything? Honestly, I doubt if she would have attended Mudd if the ratio was still 3:1. I’m pretty sure she’d have gone to U of Chicago or Swarthmore instead, where she was also accepted if Mudd were still the male geek enclave it used to be. So it is possible that Mudd is drawing OVERALL a better pool of students because of the decision to seek a more balanced gender pool.”</p>

<p>I’m assuming that your daughter was a glorious applicant (besides just test scores). </p>

<p>Surely you realize that one single case doesn’t represent a whole population. Under a meritocratic (gender-blind policy) your daughter still would have been accepted. </p>

<p>Assume that Mudd just ignored gender in admissions. Given that far more males apply, and that self-selection can only have a limited role (given previous admissions statistics) it’s obvious that far more males would be accepted than females, and far more males would attend. However, equal numbers of males and females are accepted, and equal numbers of males and females attend. </p>

<p>Let’s say that we have to build a weightlifting team. 10 people from Kansas try out, and 100 people from Washington try out. However, suppose that we had ten slots, and we wanted equal numbers of people from Kansas and Washington. If we picked the 5 best people from Kansas and the 5 best people from Washington, it isn’t a stretch to assume that the Washington people picked have had a better paper record. </p>

<p>It would be foolish to argue that females and males accepted to Mudd on average have equal paper records. Of course, females at Mudd go on to be just as successful as males. Perhaps this just speaks to the poor predictive power of a paper-record in future collegiate success. </p>

<p>Of course, we see the flip side of the coin in typical liberal arts schools such as Pomona and Amherst. Here, more women apply than men, so it is easier for men to get in. At Mudd, however, the discrepancy is more dramatic.</p>

20

<p>The problem is that a gender imbalance of more than a certain percentage affects the school adversely. So yes, schools do try to achieve a balance. Males applying to Vassar, Wheaton, Skidmore, to name a few schools, do get preferetial treatment by Admissions, more so in those years when they first went coed. A whole slew of schools are now trying to achieve some balacne, and the gender that is wanted to make the balance does have an admissions advantage. Harvey Mudd, Gerogia Tech, Carngie Meloon and engineering schools happen to be seeking the females. There are schools seeking males.</p>