<p>The MIT vs Caltech M/F ratio is just a different version of the"why so few minorities at Caltech" question. It isn't because Caltech has higher standards. Caltech has merit scholarships, MIT doesn't have to.
I graduated MIT when it was LESS than 10 % women. It was a very unnatural situation. At that time, the number of women students was limited because they had no dorm space. They solved this by making some of the dorms coed. Since then, they have beat the bushes, along with their alumnae, to get every qualified woman to apply. The number of qualified women has skyrocketed in one generation from my time, when everyone, from my parents to my teachers, tried to discourage me from a science education. Caltech is lagging behind and it is very hard to catch up. If you have the choice between going to Caltech with the lopsided ratio or MIT which has close to parity, which one are you going to choose? The same thing with minority admits. Are you going to go to a school where you might be the ONLY one of your race in your class, when you have other, equally attractive, choices?</p>
<p>"If you have the choice between going to Caltech with the lopsided ratio or MIT which has close to parity, which one are you going to choose?"</p>
<p>I know plenty of people whose chose Caltech over MIT.</p>
<p>I am sure there are students who choose Caltech over MIT. That wasn't the discussion topic. It was whether Caltech's lopsided M/F ratio was due to tougher admission standards at Caltech. It isn't.
It is hard enough to do your problem sets without worrying about everyone watching you because you are the only one of your gender in class. I know. I lived through it. It isn't fun. Thank God those days are long gone at MIT. That is why I work hard to encourage qualified women to consider MIT where there is a decent chance that there will be several female aero/astro or math etc majors that you can commiserate with.
MIT was 70/30 M/F as recently as 15 years ago.I have every reason to believe that Caltech will make progress as quickly. Just for now though, MIT RULES : )</p>
<p>
[quote]
It was whether Caltech's lopsided M/F ratio was due to tougher admission standards at Caltech. It isn't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From an MIT alum, I would expect a more coherent argument. You've provided no evidence for your assertion. </p>
<p>Here's what you're up against. In 2004-05 at MIT, the probability that a random female applicant was admitted was 2.45 times higher than the probability that a random male applicant was admitted. At Caltech, that ratio is 1.70. This suggests that MIT acts more aggressively to balance the gender ratio of admits than Caltech.</p>
<p>Or, look at it another way. In 2004/2005, </p>
<p>MIT's applicant pool split 73/27 male/female.
MIT's admits split 53/47 male/female.</p>
<p>CIT's applicant pool split 77/23 male/female.
CIT's admits split 66/34 male/female. </p>
<p>So, the one argument that you vaguely mumbled above has been blown out of the water. It isn't that MIT recruitment makes the share of female applicants significantly higher than at Caltech, so they can admit a more balanced class. In fact, the gender split of the pools is almost identical (a 4% difference). It's just that MIT takes its lopsided pool and produces a near 50/50 result (magic!), and Caltech doesn't. I tell you (not in total ignorance, since I am a member of Caltech's admissions committee) that if we wanted a result more like MIT's, we could do it tomorrow, and we could make it look "fair". It's just a question of priorities.</p>
<p>Many people see all this as evidence that Caltech's process is closer to being equally tough on men and women, that the standards are fairer. You can argue that this isn't so, but your mumbling about recruitment success isn't going to get you there.</p>
<p>Finally: many of my female friends at Caltech say that they came to Caltech over MIT precisely so they wouldn't feel like there is a concerted institutional effort to find them some female math major friends. While there are women (like you) who think it's important to find a person of similar color, gender, etc. to "commiserate" with, others would prefer to be at a place that doesn't think so much about colors and genders and "commiserating" on that basis. And honestly, I have a little more respect for the latter kind of person, and for the latter kind of place.</p>
<p>Just a note, because this is going to aggravate me: CIT is a suitable acronym for Caltech? Isn't it just "Caltech"? I've seen CIT used as Carnegie Institute of Technology, and though I realize acronyms can be used for different things, I always thought Caltech didn't have the MIT acronym. It's not like there's anyone calling MIT "Masstech", is it?</p>
<p>CIT is used more often than Masstech, but is not really in widespread use. I used it to make the lines the same length.</p>
<p>Heh, MassTech. Sounds funny...</p>
<p>Mass Ave</p>
<p>(This is just to make the post long enough to actually be able to post. Apparantly I need ten characters. OK, that's all)</p>
<p>I'll note once again that this is sortof a pointless thread/discussion. You guys are all making great arguments, but if I wanted to I could simultaneously support and refute everything that's been said by each of you, using the same data. :-)</p>
<p>And that's sort of the point: it's a very complicated, holistic, context-driven process to admit a class. If it could be done purely by numbers, I'd be out of a job.</p>
<p>The last time this topic came around, I remember saying that Caltech and MIT had somewhat different definitions of "the ideal applicant." So it makes sense that the outcomes of our admissions process would be different as well. That's not a bad thing. </p>
<p>You're going to get a great education at either place - choose the school whose culture is a better match for you. Generally speaking, one school is not better than the other. Personally speaking, one school probably is - but only you can decide that. There's no point in debating it publicly.</p>
<p>Ben J. -- yes. As usual,
[quote]
If you have the choice between going to Caltech with the lopsided ratio or MIT which has close to parity, which one are you going to choose?
[/quote]
etc. gets my goat, as if there were a right answer. The mistake everyone makes (including myself) is projecting their own preferences into some broader version of justice.</p>
<p>The business of defining merit and publicly justifying an admissions process is incredibly interesting stuff. (To anyone who actually would have the time, Jerome Karabel's The Chosen, a history of the idea of "merit" in elite admissions, is an amazing read.) So, one outcome of this admittedly pretty pointless discussion is that I got a good idea for an econ paper about what constraints public observation imposes on admissions decisions. And here I thought reading applications only took me away from schoolwork ;-)</p>
<p>Here we go again (and again and again) -- Ben G. haplessly trying to portray the average MIT female as intellectually weaker than the average Caltech female, apparently because he hasnt been able to come up with a better rationale for explaining why the Caltech undergraduate class is still so disproportionately male. </p>
<p>Tute gave us (and Ben) a very good reason, and couched her comments in good-natured, although anecdotal, terms, and Ben attacked, reflexively. Her primary observation was that maybe its not about admissions. Maybe its about recruitment. MIT did a phenomenal job last year of attracting outstanding applicants, male and female. Perhaps the pool of females applying to MIT wasnt the same as the pool applying to Caltech. Maybe they were smarter, maybe they were bolder, maybe theyd heard one too many stories about glomming in Pasadena. I dont know. Neither does Ben.</p>
<p>Ben, a word: your sniping is amusing, and Id love to invite Maureen Dowd to this board and let you both entertain us with your instant barbs. But MIT has a very creative, energetic admissions staff. Theyre a lot larger than Caltechs, and much more public, and Caltech cant compete on the same scale. As a result, the comments you make here may be much more damaging to Caltechs image than you realize. As I said months ago, when we had this same discussion on the Caltech board, I have no doubt that a female MIT grad will be able to hold her own against the sexism thats so pervasive in the scientific world. On the other hand, wouldnt we all be better off if vital institutions like Caltech were a bit more circumspect about the message theyre giving young women every day?</p>
<p>Exactly what message is Caltech sending to the young women of today?</p>
<p>JerseyMom -- my rationale for explaining why the Caltech class is disproportionately male is that our applicants are disproportionately male. Unlike MIT, we just don't employ the magic arts to turn a lopsided pool into an even result.</p>
<p>As for the contention that the women who apply to MIT are just more promising intellectually than those who apply to Caltech (and than the men who apply to MIT) -- sorry, I don't buy it, and few other people do. To make your argument work, MIT recruitment would have to have the following effects:
[ul]
[<em>]Huge boost in the number of strong women who apply, (so they can beat most of the men and comprise 47% of the admits.)
[</em>]No corresponding boost in the number of weaker women who apply (so that the applicant split stays 73/27 male/female, almost exactly like Caltech's).
[li]No corresponding boost in the number of strong men who apply (so that the female pool remains stronger than the pool of men).[/li][/ul]</p>
<p>That, JerseyMom, is a little too implausible for me. Maybe your powers of imagination are stronger.</p>
<p>I should say also that it is cheap and stupid of you, JerseyMom, to contend that talking about these issues makes me a sexist. I think gender is irrelevant to the probability of success in science. Which is exactly why I think it's odd when a process is much kinder to one gender than another.</p>
<p>Finally: discussing differences in admission rates and affirmative action policies in general is not evidence of any -ism. Calling things -isms when they aren't is evidence of a weak argument and a weak mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we just don't employ the magic arts to turn a lopsided pool into an even result.
[/quote]
And this is evidence that you are continuing your agreement with benjones to both remain positive about each other's schools? I'd recommend reconsidering the above comment in that light.</p>
<p>JerseyMom did not accuse you of any -ism; she referred only to "the sexism thats so pervasive in the scientific world". Are you contending that this does not exist? Having worked in corporate scientific labs for the past 23 years, I can assure you it does.</p>
<p>Nor did she contend that the women who apply to MIT are "more promising intellectually than those who apply to Caltech". She noted that YOUR contention seems sometimes to be the opposite, and then discussed that recruitment and the messages given to female admits may have something to do with the matriculation rates.</p>
<p>Perhaps there were some private messages between you that we did not share? I do not read in her comments those contentions you chose to attempt to refute.</p>
<p>And I still think you'd be better off taking back that silly "magic arts" comment.</p>
<p>You should look at that post. There, JerseyMom remarked on "anti-female bias that has been evident in your posts regarding MIT", and it seemed pretty clear that roughly the same accusation is being made above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nor did she contend that the women who apply to MIT are "more promising intellectually than those who apply to Caltech".
[/quote]
Yes, she did. You have to contend this in order to argue that the MIT process doesn't have lower standards for girls (unless you say that Caltech is discriminating against girls, if you want to go down that road). If you want the quote from JerseyMom:
[quote]
Perhaps the pool of females applying to MIT wasnt the same as the pool applying to Caltech. Maybe they were smarter, maybe they were bolder, maybe theyd heard one too many stories about glomming in Pasadena.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just to throw this out there (feel free to stomp all over it :)):</p>
<p>I'd guess that the female applicants are overall weaker than the male applicants applying to these two schools, so even keeping the acceptance ratio constant with the applicant ratio is a bit of reverse-discrimination there.</p>
<p>There's no way that you can say that the ~50% admit rate/~25% applicant rate is okay unless you're willing to admit that you aren't going to accept the absolute best candidates. And hey, if you're okay with this, then fine! The same probably goes for URMs. But this is probably okay, because you don't want your class to be composed of 80% caucasian/asian males, which are, by the way, the strongest candidates and get discriminated against the most.</p>
<p>Maybe females just aren't cut out for science and technology as males are. Has it ever occured to y'all that certain things just don't appeal to the average female? I doubt it's a question of exposure to science and tech and getting them interested in it. The classes and courses are there for them in high school. If they like science, they're going to pursue it. Nobody's telling them they can't take the advanced sciences and math and nobody's telling them not to like it. The pressure of society on young girls to follow a more traditional female career path? BALONEY.
My AP english literature class? Out of 22 students, 5 are male. Why aren't we getting the male population more involved in humanities? Why is nobody paying any attention to this skewed gender ratio?</p>
<p>Ben G, I agree with you, your arguments are very strong and extremely well put.</p>
<p>To all you feminists out there: this is coming from a 17 year old female; I know I don't have much experience or wisdom as all the adults on this forum, but sometimes the truth is so blatant it's hard to ignore.</p>
<p>Have fun tearing this apart ;)</p>
<p>By the way, some of you adults can come across as very immature sometimes...the cheap accusations and harsh insults are a bit much, I must say :)</p>
<p>Social_Pariah, where did your post go? hahaha I was going to respond to that too...</p>
<p>JerseyMom - You have captured what I have been feeling/thinking as I've read Ben's posts.</p>
<p>maverach - Thanks for posting that.</p>
<p>When I argue such things (In real life), everyone ignores me...mainly because i'm a white AND asian male. But, comming from a girl, people start to pay attention to it.</p>
<p>You do not represent Caltech well with such commentary - I say that as the mother of a well-qualified female applicant.</p>