<p>^ my last two links don't work because it included the ) in the link. If you manually delete it, they should be fine.</p>
<p>To cghen,
Great data presentation, but you're operating on one false assumption. MIT's stated admissions policies to not include the goal of balancing the sexes. In other words, in regards to gender, both MIT and CalTech operate similarly. As your data show, MIT receives rougly four times the number of female applicants as does CalTech. </p>
<p>I'll close with a story. When my daughter went to visit CalTech, she emailed the one female physics professor in advance, to set up an appointment to discuss physics at CalTech. One question my daughter asked during the conversation was "Why are there so few girls at CalTech?" The physical professor answered, "It's because we don't get enough applicants with top SAT scores in math, or who have top AP scores in BC Calc/Physics." My daughter has those top scores, but she did not end up applying to CalTech. Why not? She didn't want to study undergraduate physics at a school with such small numbers of girls, where even the professors seemed to view the female students as "not quite having the numbers." In contrast, when she visited MIT last year (an overnight stay during her junior year), she managed to have conversations with two MIT physics professors, both male. One said, "We have lots of girls taking physics here; come study physics at MIT." The other said, "Many of my top students this year are girls. Come study physics at MIT." The different degree of attitude, of welcome, were palpable. My daughter ended up applying to MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, etc., but did not apply to CalTech. She was accepted every place she applied, and chose MIT. There's more. In addition to the math and physics talent, she plays varsity tennis, climbs mountains, and has won national and state awards. She's out buying a dress for the senior prom right now (she also loves to dance). CalTech's loss, MIT's gain.</p>
<p>CalAlum:</p>
<p>You make a "factual" statement without presenting evidence. Actually, MIT does practice affirmative action in respect to female applicants. I'm sorry you weren't aware of this. (And for the record, MIT and Caltech's admissions policies are almost polar opposites)</p>
<p>(Key sentence, if it's too long for you to read: "Then when I checked my E3 card, I noticed that “diversity” had been checked off")</p>
<p>(This one's even better: "For undergraduate admissions, affirmative action involves special recruiting efforts toward underrepresented minorities and women...")</p>
<p>I'm glad your daughter can play varsity tennis, climb mountains, and win national and state awards. I could be wrong, but I've heard that you can do this at other universities (including Caltech, for instance). I guess it is our loss that your daughter did not apply to our school, but I don't think this is due to "professors viewing the female students as 'not quite having the numbers'". It might be due to your misunderstanding of this feeling, though... Caltech admits students solely on merit. Unfortunately, we admit less women because less women with the appropriate level of achievement/ability apply to Caltech. This doesn't mean that there aren't more smart girls out there, it means they aren't applying places like Caltech (or like MIT, for that matter, heh).</p>
<p>To Lizzardfire,
You mis-interpreted my post. CalTech is as committed to diversity as is MIT. See <a href="http://admissions.caltech.edu/campus-life/diversity%5B/url%5D">http://admissions.caltech.edu/campus-life/diversity</a>. If the admissions committee at CalTech had to choose between an equally qualified African-American student and a Causasian student, I'm confident the committee would select the African-American student, because that group is so woefully under-represented on the campus. Ditto the choice between an equally qualified female and a male. To do otherwise would violate the spirit of the diversity statement prepared and disseminated by the school's board of trustees. My point is simply that fewer qualified female students self-select CalTech, and my story illustrated why that might occur. As a Californian, I can say that my family would have preferred to have our daughter study closer to home. The CalTech campus is physically georgeous, and hey -- the sun shines.</p>
<p>"MIT receives rougly four times the number of female applicants as does CalTech."</p>
<p>It also receive 3.5 times the number of male applicants as Caltech. So what? I think you're trying to blow smoke over cghen's very cogent presentation. And MIT admits, indeed prides itself on the fact that it exercises "affirmative action." And anecdotes are not substitutes for statistics. It seems to me that the CalTech professor answered your daughter's question truthfully but apparently in our touch-feely PC world certain inconvenient truths are not permitted to be uttered. It seems to me that you have a desire to have it both ways - on the one hand you insist that women are qualified to compete on a level playing field with men but OTOH they are some kind of shrinking violets who have to be specially catered to.</p>
<p>Caltech and MIT both admitted roughly 25-30% of their female applicants.
To admit 50/50 male/female, Caltechs admission rate for female would have to be about 45%. Im not sure the quality of its female applicant pool can support this rate.</p>
<p>Disclosure: Im a fan of both Caltech and MIT, the Institutions.</p>
<p>
<p> [quote=CalAlum] If the admissions committee at CalTech had to choose between an equally qualified African-American student and a Causasian student, I'm confident the committee would select the African-American student, because that group is so woefully under-represented on the campus.
But you see, this is really just not the case in practice. Why? Because two applicants are very rarely equally qualified: two people might both be able to handle the work at Caltech, but that doesn't make them equally qualified (in Caltech's eyes) - one person's accomplishments might be more profound or another person had to work harder to overcome fewer opportunities.</p>
<p>I think this is where Caltech and MIT differ a bit - Caltech wants to admit the most qualified scientific individuals possible to form a class of incredibly gifted, scientifically-minded students. MIT evaluates which students can handle the work, and then admits people based on not only scientific achievement/potential, but also on grounds of diversity, fit, class makeup and non-math/science extra-curriculars. These are pretty substantially different modes of operation, and again, I think that is the fundamental reason why MIT ends up with a more diverse class.</p>
<p>^^ very true</p>
<p>A few things:</p>
<p>1) please please find more reliable sources than "OPINION COLUMNS" in The Tech newspapers at MIT which is infamous for misrepresenting facts and misreporting news.</p>
<p>2) </p>
<p>Caltech:
Female Applicants: 641
Female Acceptances: 192</p>
<p>Female acceptance rate: 30%</p>
<p>MIT:</p>
<p>Female Applicants: 2,832
Female Acceptances: 736</p>
<p>Female Acceptance rate: 26%</p>
<p>Compare that with Caltech males: 17.6%
MIT males: 10%</p>
<p>I can only come to one of several conclusions by looking at this: Since one really cannot expect acceptance rates to mirror each other across institutions and there is always a fluctuation of a few percentage points, MIT and Caltech admit females and males under more or less the same policy. If Caltech were as completely meritocratic as they claim, then MIT is not far from it. If Caltech gave a slight advantage to females (which I do expect to be the case here) then so does MIT, to about the same extent (by the statistics a little more). BUT, I would even argue that the males applying to Caltech are a little more self-selective than the males applying to MIT. MIT has a reputation among the laymen that Caltech does not. Anyone applying to Caltech is not doing so for the sake of "seeing if they can get in" they actually want to go and probably have done extensive research on the institution. With that in mind, it seems to me the two institutions have almost identical admissions policies regarding men and women.</p>
<p>3) In addition, Caltech throws money at its women admits like lonely men at hookers. Why doesn't that bother you? You are just as qualified as these ladies yet Caltech dangles heaps and heaps of money in front of them to get them to come. And still, they don't come. Why don't girls want to go to Caltech? Even high achieving girls. Well, if this website is any indication I'm even afraid there might be discrimination against women at Caltech for all the constant questioning of their abilities. I hear Caltech is a very collaborative culture but you guys have exuded nothing but unhealthy, unsupportive vibes. I mean you could be right or you could be wrong, but why so hung up on it? That's what scares me. I had a friend deciding between MIT and Caltech visit the campus come back shaking his head and said "they're just so uptight there, it seems." What's up with that? Is it an unfortunate side-effect from being around just not enough girls??</p>
<p>As for URMs, MIT has openly stated that it practices Affirmative Action. Aside from that, is there really anything to talk about? Other than do you support AA or are you against it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's up with that? Is it a psychological side-effect from being around just not enough girls??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yes, Caltech men are all reeling without a healthy number of women on campus. Somehow, women seem to make everything better, don't they?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech throws money at its women admits like lonely men at hookers
[/quote]
Obviously, I'm not female. But if I was, I'd be insulted by your insinuation that women need to be on campus just to keep the guys happy. The hookers analogy is unfortunate.</p>
<p>And no one questions the abilities of girls at Caltech. No one.</p>
<p>If MIT admits women at 2.6 times the rate that it admits men, in what sense is this a "slight" advantage. What would a "large" advantage look like in your view, Pebbles?</p>
<p>BTW, except for MIT and Caltech and a few other science oriented school, the shoe is now on the other foot - most colleges are getting more female than male applicants and soon will have to start manipulating the admissions process to favor men (if they have not already begun doing so). We'll see how well that goes over with the AA crowd, or does it all depend on whose ox is being gored?</p>
<p>?? Where did I insinuate that? That's not my quote. I never said women "needed" to be anywhere, espcially to please guys. But I do believe having a diverse campus is probably somewhat important to psychological good health, for both men & women.</p>
<p>EDIT: this is a response to pundit.</p>
<p>"If MIT admits women at 2.6 times the rate that it admits men, in what sense is this a "slight" advantage. What would a "large" advantage look like in your view, Pebbles?"</p>
<p>Well, I was comparing it with the "meritocratic" process tauted by Caltech. Caltech admits women at 2 times the rate it admits men. If that is completely meritocratic, then MIT is not far from it.</p>
<p>EDIT: No matter, that's just my two-cents. I don't feel like engaging in a huge ego-fest about this again. Whatever your conclusions from this discussion, hope you can live with it.</p>
<p>If we're going to crunch numbers -- then we should probably compare admission rates across genders too. Caltech has a female admission rate 1.7 times higher than the male admission rate, while MIT's is 2.6 times higher.</p>
<p>I am a female, I got into Caltech, and I got a terrible financial aid package. But I did like the school very much and did choose it over a number of other academically-comparable ones. Actually, I liked it exactly because there was no PC superficiality or fake perkiness, but I guess that might come across as uptight-ness to some.</p>
<p>I think it's only natural that they make serious recruitment efforts when it comes to admitted students. I do think Caltech wants a diverse campus, just that it's not willing to sacrifice any student quality for one.</p>
<p>EDIT: Ugh, beaten. :/</p>
<p>Pebbles, you're the one who insisted on accuracy, so be accurate.</p>
<p>Caltech: 30%/17.6% = 1.70
Females have a 70% better chance of being admitted.</p>
<p>MIT: 26%/10% = 2.60
Females have a 160% better chance of being admitted.</p>
<p>MIT2001DAD: "I think MIT should have FIRED her as soon as it confirmed the fraud."</p>
<p>MIT could not fire her because it did not have the legal reason to do so. She could bring on ton of lawyers to wreck MIT. I think in her employment application with MIT 28 years ago, there was no requirement for degree and no clause for termination. MIT was lucky when she resigned.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT was lucky when she resigned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? Would she really have the guts to sue MIT after everyone found out that she has no degrees?</p>
<p>What would have happened if she didn't resign? I'm chuckling as I write this, but would she have continued serve as Dean? How could she have looked anyone in the eyes and say "I'm Dean of Admissions"?</p>
<p>Ditto on calling pebbles on the rounding. :) That's a pretty big difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Originally posted by **CalAlum:**</p>
<p>If the admissions committee at CalTech had to choose between an equally qualified African-American student and a Causasian student, I'm confident the committee would select the African-American student, because that group is so woefully under-represented on the campus. Ditto the choice between an equally qualified female and a male.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To CalAlum, regarding Caltech admissions. Unfortunately, your understanding of the situation is not accurate. I served on the Caltech admissions committee for two years and we would not break ties in favor of an African American or a woman. When we had a tie (and there was one genuine tie that I saw out of several hundred cases), we would admit or deny both applicants. If for some reason we couldn't do that (and now we're getting into the realm of situations that don't arise) we would flip a coin. That's not against the spirit of the diversity statement -- it speaks about treating people with equal respect regardless of race, gender, etc. -- and giving someone a leg up because of their chromosomes or their skin pigment is not treating them with respect. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Originally posted by **CalAlum:**</p>
<p>...when she visited MIT last year (an overnight stay during her junior year), she managed to have conversations with two MIT physics professors, both male. One said, "We have lots of girls taking physics here; come study physics at MIT." The other said, "Many of my top students this year are girls. Come study physics at MIT."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As for your daughter, I really hope she's happy at MIT, but we're just not into telling people "Come study physics here because LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE YOU DO, TOO." It would rightfully be a very serious scandal if someone said to a student, "Come study math at Caltech, we have lots of Jews who do that," or "Come study biology at Harvard, it's a very popular major with the Negroes here."</p>
<p>The fact that it makes you *happy<a href="as%20opposed%20to%20puzzled,%20confused%20as%20to%20the%20point,%20offended...">/i</a> that people say this with the ethnicities replaced by genders speaks volumes about how far MIT has left to go before it can achieve the kind of respect for all different kinds of people that Caltech so effortlessly embodies.</p>
<p>If she did not resign, MIT would find a way to let her go but with a higher cost.</p>
<p>
Yes, but this is not that large of an effect (sometimes you should try to actually quantify things over randomly speculating):</p>
<p>Caltech male yield/female yield: 1.26 (2004-2005)
Caltech male yield/female yield: 1.07 (2003-2004)
Caltech male yield/female yield: 1.16(2002-2003)
MIT male yield/female yield: 1.11 (2005-2006)</p>
<p>So accept for last year, Caltech's males self-select just as much as MIT's.</p>
<p>So you're still left with the 2.6x help to females compared to 1.7x at Caltech. </p>
<p>Moreover, I still think it's very dubious that the admit ratio (male to female) would be so close to 50 percent at MIT and so different at Caltech (even after adjusting for small extra amount of females who apply to MIT vs. Caltech).</p>
<p>That and statements like:
[quote=benjones]
Once you've demonstrated that you can thrive academically at MIT, it's everything else that actually gets you admitted - what you will bring to the community, whether you're a good match, etc.<a href="%5Burl%5Dhttp://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3209061&highlight=women+MIT#post3209061%5B/url%5D">/quote</a>
are what make people (like myself) think that MIT must be giving some sort of advantage to women (again I'm not saying this is bad, just that it exists) in admissions. Now, it doesn't need to be something so obvious as giving extra credit for being female - that's certainly not what happens. What I speculate, though, is that MIT's admission office has shifted what it values in applicants to activities where either men and women equally perform or where women outperform men.</p>