<p>What’s offensive about the expression “robotic clones”? It’s not directed at an affinity group. Unless one projects one’s own stereotypes, of course.</p>
<p>If Marilee Jones did make such a statement, she should have been called to account for that bit if stereotyping. </p>
<p>Also, what do you all make of this: [Too</a> Asian? | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian]Too”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian)</p>
<p>ExieMITAlum, you made a lot of assumptions about me, but I don’t have time for rebuttal. So think as you please. If you can deduce from my posts that I believe perfect scores must be required from MIT admits, then I am not going to waste my time explaining that it’s very far from the truth.</p>
<p>My beef with preferences for girls is based on facts, not on someone’s wishful thinking. The first piece of information is data from my own small Midwestern town. Because my son’s friends (boys and girls) are the types that apply to MIT/Stanford/Ivy League, I know how many people have been successful at it in the past 4 years. It’s very obvious from the kids I know that MIT often chooses a mediocre girl (who is still very advanced compared to the average American girl) over an extremely talented boy with achievements and ECs obviously superior to that girl. There has been one exception to this: one girl was admitted to MIT who is just as good as those exceptional boys who got rejected.</p>
<p>Now, let’s do some calculations. From MIT common data set:</p>
<p>Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied 12,443
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied 5,466</p>
<p>Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted 891
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted 851 </p>
<p>Thus,
Ratio of female to male applications = .31
Ratio of female to male admits = .49</p>
<p>Overall admit rate = 9.7%
Female admit rate =15.6%
Male admit rate = 7.2%</p>
<p>I don’t buy the argument that applications from girls are stronger because somehow girls are more self-selective than boys. Again my personal data tells me opposite. I see many mediocre girls (by MIT standards) who get in and many talented boys (not necessarily measured by perfect scores) who get rejected.</p>
<p>So, who is losing? If admit rate was gender blind, MIT would admit 1207 boys not 891. Thus in 2012, 316 talented boys were losers in this political game of gender equality. </p>
<p>Now, I would like to clarify. I believe that some boost for girls is needed. And agree it’s valid to wish a more gender balanced campus. But the current preference seems to be too extreme. However, again as a private institution MIT can set up whatever policies it wants. But it can’t demand the same respect as it used to from people who don’t think these policies are fair and beneficial in the long run.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl asks, what is offensive about the phrase “robotic clones,” if they come in all ethnic groups/classes/etc.? I think that the phrase tends to downplay our common humanity, and perhaps to imply that the “robotic clones” are somehow lesser.</p>
<p>I realize it’s a metaphor! And not literal!</p>
<p>I will be starting “Celebrating Our Common Humanity Day” on March 10, 2013.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I don’t claim “high level math skills” and “high level EQ skills”. Can I give you a little piece of advice. Please do a search on “micro aggression” and see what it means and whether you might recognize some examples of “micro aggression” on this forum. </p>
<p>Somehow, MIT survived for at least 100 years without the 50-50 gender ratio. And actually has become very famous despite it.</p>
<p>
Such good long post and then your conclusion is all wrong.</p>
<p>
Wait, now we have to worry about fairies in the admission process? Is Tinkerbell a URM? </p>
<p>
And those people certainly don’t need to apply there.</p>
<p>“Again my personal data tells me opposite.”</p>
<p>Wow, you have a personal database of MIT applicants?</p>
<p>.
“Now, I would like to clarify. I believe that some boost for girls is needed. And agree it’s valid to wish a more gender balanced campus. But the current preference seems to be too extreme. However, again as a private institution MIT can set up whatever policies it wants. But it can’t demand the same respect as it used to from people who don’t think these policies are fair and beneficial in the long run.”</p>
<p>So feel free not to respect it as much as you used to. I’m sure MIT isn’t losing sleep over it.<br>
(“Demanding respect?” How does that work?)</p>
<p>" The first piece of information is data from my own small Midwestern town. Because my son’s friends (boys and girls) are the types that apply to MIT/Stanford/Ivy League, I know how many people have been successful at it in the past 4 years. It’s very obvious from the kids I know that MIT often chooses a mediocre girl (who is still very advanced compared to the average American girl) over an extremely talented boy with achievements and ECs obviously superior to that girl"</p>
<p>You don’t have anything remotely representing a random or full sample, and you don’t know the totality of any kid’s applications, ECs, essays or how they came across in an interview. Sorry. Nice try. You cannot possibly draw any conclusions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, you are incorrect. And this is one of the times I can happily defend MIT"s practices.</p>
<p>MIT says that the much larger acceptance rate for females is due to “self-selection”–that is, only very qualified females apply while there is a larger variation of talent in the male applicants. I can attest that this is not just propoganda. I saw this at my math & science high school. This is true even for girls that wanted to major in science at an elite school like Harvard or Stanford. For some reason, there is an “ick” factor for females with regard to some of these techical schools. I will add that basically everybody at my high school was “qualiied” for admission under MIT’s expansive definition, so I think the number of applicants I’ve seen is sufficient to draw conclusions.</p>
<p>There is still an affirmative action preference, but I have no idea how much of an effect it is. </p>
<p>However, the uneven acceptance rates between gender also occur at Caltech, which historically does not have affirmative action. (There is some questions as to whether they have it today, but in the past they definitely said they didn’t have it, and there was a much larger acceptance rate for females.)</p>
<p>As always with statistics, one must be imaginative in thinking of all the scenarios which may explain them.</p>
<p>Yet another worry that will keep me up at night - mediocre girls from the midwest dragging down the mighty MIT. Why can’t they just stay in the midwest. 
</p>
<p>"MIT says that the much larger acceptance rate for females is due to “self-selection”–that is, only very qualified females apply while there is a larger variation of talent in the male applicants. I can attest that this is not just propoganda. I saw this at my math & science high school. "</p>
<p>Thank you for the clarification. It is not inconsistent with what i said. The pool of women might be better qualified, equally qualified or less qualified than the pool of men - but if there are appreciably fewer of them applying - which there are - then MIT is going to accept that at a higher rate to get to a 50-50 gender balance. </p>
<p>“This is true even for girls that wanted to major in science at an elite school like Harvard or Stanford. For some reason, there is an “ick” factor for females with regard to some of these techical schools.”</p>
<p>Do you think it might have to do with the perceived number of robotic clones they will encounter as potential dates? Ha ha.</p>
<p>Wonder if value words like mediocre can be qualified as “in my opinion.” Plus maybe “based on my small Midwestern town.” ?
-and distinguish beteen admit rates and actual matriculation?</p>
<p>Mediocre is a value word in the poster’s mind because the poster probably has no clue about the girl’s achievements while the male peacocks in that town are strutting their stuff and claiming glorious achievements.</p>
<p>Last time this discussion came about, I posted stats for a few MIT women admits and parents started sending me stats of their own kids. None of them had scores below 2300+ and some even had perfect scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I am getting more and more outdated as its been a decade and a half since I applied, but my feeling was that it was due in part to the boot camp mentality that MIT/Caltech projected and also the lack of creature comforts (e.g., dorms/campus) in comparison to its peer schools. MIT has tried to appear more warm-and-fuzzy in the years since I matriculated; I don’t know if this has made it more appealing to females.</p>
<p>You know…MIT is not the center of the college universe. Believe it or not, there are students who would not walk across the street to apply there. It is ONE college, and not the BEST college at everything. Sure, it has a recognizable brand name, but that doesn’t make it the top pick for everyone.</p>
<p>And who cares about a thread that was locked three years ago that has posts about the smell in a building that is no longer used for that purpose.</p>
<p>This thread has morphed into a discussion that belongs in the cafe…in my opinion.</p>
<p>yes, sample size of approximately 15 people is very common in research, so my conclusions could be publishable if I invested time in doing formal statistical analysis. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl, until you figure out how to formulate your arguments in less aggressive manner, I won’t reply to you. Actually, a few other people here need to learn how to reply to arguments without attacking your opponents. I understand you feel you can insult people on an anonymous forum, but think that bad habits can spill into your real world and may damage your reputation at work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some female MIT alums who graduated in the '80s also mentioned how some male classmates viewed them as “interlopers” and gave off the vibe of “No gurls allowed here”. </p>
<p>There’s also some concerns about being regarded more than products at a dating market as there’s a prevailing stereotype of MIT women…especially caucasian women due to the popular saying among MIT male students on dating odds on their campus that “The odds are good, but the goods[MIT women] are odd”. This mentality really irked female HS classmates at MIT while we were in college from the mid-late '90s.</p>
<p>"yes, sample size of approximately 15 people is very common in research, so my conclusions could be publishable if I invested time in doing formal statistical analysis. "</p>
<p>How many got in? Where else did they get in?</p>