<p>Caltech claims that affirmative action is not practiced in admissions there at all. I believe this claim. Nevertheless, the percentage of female applicants who are admitted to Caltech is generally higher than the percentage of male applicants who are admitted. This most likely results from extra self-selection by the female applicants. </p>
<p>At MIT, the differential between the percentage of female applicants who are admitted and the percentage of male applicants who are admitted is greater than it is at Caltech. A reasonable first estimate of the self-selection effect at MIT would set it equal to Caltech’s. It might not be equal. It is possible that highly qualified female applicants are drawn more to MIT because of other differences between the two universities. On the other hand, it is also possible that there are more female applicants who are borderline for admission at MIT than there are at Caltech, again because of other differences between the two universities. These effects work in opposite directions. Without further information, it probably makes sense to just equate the self-selection effect to Caltech’s.</p>
<p>The remaining difference between the rate of acceptances of women and men at MIT is almost certainly due to the intent of MIT admissions to achieve approximate gender balance in the entering class (not a concern at Caltech).</p>
<p>At HYP and S, I think it is no easier for a woman to be admitted than for a man.</p>
<p>The applicant pools ARE substantially different especially among female applicants. </p>
<p>Unquestionably, there is much greater overlap in applicants between MIT and HYPS than between Caltech and HYPS. This trend has increased over the past decade according to MIT’s admission’s office. A major contributor to this trend is from the increase in top female applicants who are very strong in the sciences but do not want to apply to a pure technical institute or to a school where they are in a small minority. MIT has much more diversified offerings than Caltech in areas such as economics, management, political science, neuroscience, the life sciences or even the humanities and is therefore much more attractive to applicants who want to broaden their education outside of the sciences. </p>
<p>The greater gender parity also makes the school more attractive to women applicants. It can easily be shown that MIT has a much stronger female applicant pool than Caltech. Most of the female applicants I interview do not apply to Caltech. Caltech still has a serious image issue with female applicants which no longer exists at MIT. Their yield with admitted female applicants is also less than half that of MIT, with Caltech losing the vast majority of cross admits to HYPSM.</p>
<p>cellardweller, most of what you said seems very reasonable. The one item I question is “It can easily be shown that MIT has a much stronger female applicant pool than Caltech.” What supporting evidence do you have for this, beyond the statement about applicants you interview? Just at a guess, I think it’s likely that Caltech’s female applicant pool has higher average scores on the SAT, SAT II’s, AMC12, and AIME than MIT’s. Research project experience is probably about equal between the two groups. When it comes to character/personal qualities, I don’t really believe that those can be assessed very well based on the information in an application + interview.</p>
<p>I made the remark just above because my colleagues keep surprising me, both positively and negatively, for ten to fifteen years; and I don’t think I’m especially imperceptive.</p>
<p>Harvard does not use racial quotas, although evidence suggests that diversity (incl. racial diversity) is one factor among many considered in the admissions process. Quotas are probably illegal as per the Supreme Court decision Gratz v. Bollinger. </p>
<p>What a college should or shouldn’t do is really a matter of opinion. If a school like MIT, for instance, felt its goals were better served if it selected students without much of a preference for either sex, that is certainly within its prerogative, although you and I may think that it should act otherwise.</p>