<p>then you have to go back and calculate what percentage of all females do athletes make up...</p>
<p>useless point.</p>
<p>there are female recruits as well...</p>
<p>ParentofIvyHope by only looking at admit rate is citing some very misleading statistics. The fact that men have a higher admit rate at Yale does not mean it is easier for them to get in. Consider: the reason to admit men at a higher rate is if your school has more women than men. You would presumably fix this problem by raising the male admit rate such that you admit equal numbers of men and women. Looking at the numbers ParentofIvyHope cites, Yale in fact admitted more men than women. If they were lowering standards to admit men, they would only do so to the extent necessary to make the numbers equal, not to admit more men than women. You cannot conclude from these numbers that it is easier to be admitted as a male.</p>
<p>That said, at the next level of selectivity down, it is almost certainly easier to be admitted if you are male. The reason more women go to college than men is not because there are more women in the top 1%, it is because there are more women in the top 20-30%.</p>
<p>Additionally, looking at schools with similar selectivity to Yale, you find at Stanford:
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied:11,107
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied:11,226
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted: 1,211
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted: 1,233</p>
<p>Admit rate for men: 10.90%
Admit rate for women: 10.98%</p>
<p>That is to say, virtually the same for men and women.</p>
<p>At Princeton:
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied 8744
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied 7766
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted 980
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted 827</p>
<p>Which works out to 11.21% for men and 10.65% for women. Princeton has absolutely no reason to admit men at a higher rate if the goal is to create gender balance (Princeton is 54% male), so they must be admitting more men simply because Princeton's male applicant pool is stronger than its female applicant pool. They have no reason to make it easier for men to be admitted, and thus logically they probably don't.</p>
<p>I don't think that Princeton Male pool is stronger than Female pool. But just because more female actually apply to Ivies the admit rate is held artifically low to not fill the class with much more females.
It is same as at MIT, the admit rate for female is better and there will be an advantage for female.</p>
<p>Similarly at Ivies the Male has a slight better chance just because more female actually apply to Ivies causing Ivies to artificially peg the admit rate.</p>
<p>Otherwise if they won't do that the classes at Ivies will be filled with 60% female and 40% male.</p>
<p>Stanford is a mix of MIT and Ivies and so the male/female rate is more or less equal.</p>
<p>Princeton had more male applicants than female and still admitted a higher percentage of males. Clearly this was not necessary to maintain gender balance, in fact, it created gender imbalance (significantly more men than women at Princeton). Thus, gender balance is not an adequate explanation of why Princeton admits men at a higher rate than women.</p>
<p>I heard a female applicant to MIT has about a 10% better chance of being admitted than a male applicant.</p>
<p>Go to the link below
Enter Institution Name & drill down
When you get to the profile for the school, click on 'admissions'.</p>
<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/</a></p>
<p>Sample output:
[quote]
Total Men Women
Number of applicants 5,423 2,160 3,263
Percent admitted 45.8% 53.7% 40.7%
Percent admitted who enrolled
Full-time 30.5% 31.9% 29.2%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The 2005-2006 Common Data Set for MIT has-</p>
<p>10.0% of Men accepted
26.0% of Women accepted</p>
<p>Arguing about 1% or so differences at Yale, Stanford and Princeton, which may change year-to-year anyway, is not very meaningful.
At MIT, however...</p>