<p>I'm all for analysis, but I think at this point it might be hurtful. The problem is that we have had a breach of intergrity in the MIT admissions office/process. Applicants may have been "harmed" (in quotes because in many cases MIT's loss is some other institution's gain, and the students are probably brilliantly succeeding elsewhere). </p>
<p>To do an analysis now would only either confirm to those students that they were unfairly treated, or make them wonder what if their was something else in their application that was really, really sub-par compared to other applicants (like a lukewarm recommendation). </p>
<p>On another note, why is it that after the first class of Marilee-admitted students graduated the institute got together to re-evaluate the core curriculum and recommended to no longer require 8.02? This physics class is the one in which Professor Walter Lewin says " This is the science that runs our entire economy." How is 8.02 not essential for a proper understanding of our world?</p>
<p>Wow, now Marilee is responsible for everything in the Task Force Report on Undergraduate Education that people don't like. I mean, if that's the topic you want to discuss, by all means go ahead, but at least start a new thread.</p>
<p>But while we're at it, I'd like to go on record as being the first to claim that she was also responsible for the war in Iraq, all those times Harry Potter chapters get leaked before the actual release date of the book, and Bill Buckner's goofed play in the 1986 World Series.</p>
On another note, why is it that after the first class of Marilee-admitted students graduated the institute got together to re-evaluate the core curriculum and recommended to no longer require 8.02? This physics class is the one in which Professor Walter Lewin says " This is the science that runs our entire economy." How is 8.02 not essential for a proper understanding of our world?
</p>
<p>Oh goodness. Please don't tell me that's the criteria you're using for determining whether or not a class should be a GIR.</p>
<p>Allow me to recap the first day of each of my physics classes:
8.022: "Electricity and Magnetism represent perhaps the greatest accomplishments of human insight and learning. We've come from lode stones and amber to single reactors smaller than this room that can power the entire city..."</p>
<p>8.03: "The profound ramifications of the relationship between mathematics and physics fundamentally drives all the processes in our world. While the entire universe does not lie in the scope of this class, you will learn the fundamental processes behind modeling any physical situation, the most fundamental aspect of doing any work in physics."</p>
<p>8.04: "25% of the American GDP in some way derives directly from quantum mechanics. Without our knowledge of quantum physics, America would not be the superpower that it is today. Stars would not burn, atoms would not stay together, and the entire universe as we know it could not exist."</p>
<p>Yeah, uhm. Physics professors have a tendency to perhaps, uhm, excessively emphasize just how crucial it is that everyone need to take that class. :P</p>
<p>"EDIT: However, I would really like to see that women vs. men SAT scores data as well. I have a feeling a lot of big mouths would be shut on the issue."</p>
<p>Don't men tend to outperform women on the SAT?</p>
<p>AIME scores for men and women can be found here. It seems as though the men are outperforming the women by quite a bit.</p>
<p>I remember reading in the Washington Post that in the "old" SAT, the average male score was 42 points higher than the female; on the "new" SAT, the average male score is 26 points higher than the female. Obviously, that's a trivial difference though, so it wouldn't affect admissions at any school. Note that the 26 points refers to the ENTIRE test, not a specific section. Anyway though, I'm a girl and have crazy high scores (going to Stanford! w00t) so I don't really think that girl/boy thing is as much as an issue as it once was. Gender differences are beginning to level off.</p>
<p>As with the AIME scores, girls just have not traditionally been as involved in math competitions (or math/science in general.) This is a culture issue that schools like MIT are trying to reverse. This is good. In about 20 years, I honestly believe that gender will no longer be a factor, seing as how gender is not related to any kind of socio-economic status, etc, as race, sadly, often is.</p>
<p>Anyway, to all the grumpy little boys out there that are mad because they "got beat by a girl" in the admissions process: just get over it. Women have been opressed for a long time, and now that the world of academia is actively trying to do something about it, you should be supportive!</p>
I'm not trying to be vague here, but the data is the property of the registrar & co., not the admissions office, which is probably why it's not in my hot little hands right at this moment. (Mmm, delicious data.) The registrar doesn't release male vs. female GPA data, as it does not release any GPA data at all.</p>
<p>I will repeat: my understanding, from those who have in fact seen this data, is that the female student GPAs are higher than male student GPAs, even taking differential major choice into account. If you don't trust me to not make this kind of stuff up, I apologize.</p>
<p>barberconcerto was making an excellent point. Then:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, to all the grumpy little boys out there that are mad because they "got beat by a girl" in the admissions process: just get over it. Women have been opressed for a long time, and now that the world of academia is actively trying to do something about it, you should be supportive!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>FWIW, you had the argument on the facts. You then killed your post with what is little more than a "nyaa-nyaa". Women weren't "oppressed" on MIT's campus when I was there 27 years ago or elsewhere in academia and I doubt it got worse after I left.</p>
<p>MIT somehow seems to attract a response to its admissions decisions that I do not see at the other top universities. It seems to go like this "I am a high school student, and I know what the admissions criteria of MIT should be. If the deans and faculty at MIT do not do what I believe they should, then it is proof that they are either incompetent (do not know what they should be doing with admissions) or dishonest. By the standards that I believe are appropriate, I should be admitted. If I am not, then there is something drastically wrong with MIT."</p>
<p>To point out the obvious:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Jones did not unilaterally decide the admissions policies at MIT. She was influential, but ultimately broad policies on admissions are made by the faculty.</p></li>
<li><p>If the quality of students were declining, due to efforts to recruit more female or minority students, as some posters claim, the faculty would notice and demand changes in admissions practice.</p></li>
<li><p>MIT admits a little over 1/10 of applicants. If you fire Jones, and replace every person admitted with someone else, about 80% of applicants will have been denied admissions both times. (actual admit rate is a bit over 10%, but you get the point). So even if you replace her, and radically change admissions practices, MIT will still admit ~10% of applicants and most who were denied will still be denied.</p></li>
<li><p>MIT is being HONEST when it says it is not just grades and test scores. Strangely when the admissions decisions reflect this, they are accused of dishonesty. </p></li>
<li><p>This will have no effect on the future of MIT. Jones did not teach courses, do research, or run a lab. The education MIT students receive will remain outstanding. I can remember several of my professors from college, but I never had any idea who was head of admissions. I got an admission letter, that I assumed was signed by him - it was a long time ago, so I assume it was a him. That's it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Kemet please don't bring out that "hogwash" again (it seems everytime I use an * I get my post deleted, while other * words from some other users remain...).</p>
<p>That list of what MIT looks for is the same as what every other college says they look for, and really doesn't give much into answering the real questions about "what kind of class are you trying to compose this year." Also, a lot of people fit the category that's described there. What do they use to further break down applicants?</p>
<p>I'm not blasting MIT. It's just that every college is pretty tight in admissions, but MIT's claim of openness seem exaggerated to me.</p>
<p>Also, the trustees pick the next admissions officer. I'm sure that they picked Jones agreeing with her philosophy. Thus, Jones was merely carrying out the wishes of the MIT Trustees.</p>
<p><a href="mollieB%20wrote:">quote</a>my understanding, from those who have in fact seen this data, is that the female student GPAs are higher than male student GPAs, even taking differential major choice into account.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT's affirmative action policies almost certainly have opposite effects on the male and female admitted pool --- an upward effect on female performance and a downward effect on the male statistics. </p>
<p>It is difficult, because of the smaller female and URM applicant numbers that drive AA in the first place, for the admissions office to race-balance the female admit pool or to gender-balance each race pool. The only solution is to over-admit Asian and white (and possibly international) women and over-admit URM men. MIT can also try to admit applicants that fall into two categories, i.e. to give double preference to URM women, but these are rare enough to be a secondary effect. </p>
<p>Assume that the distribution curve of admissions credentials is the same for all race/gender combinations, with the only difference being the number of applicants --- i.e. there are more white men with 800 math SAT's than Latino women, but the proportion of 800 to 750 SAT scorers or 4.0 to 3.8 GPAs is the same within all populations. Assume also that the correlation between high-school credentials and performance at MIT is the same across all groups. Then any admissions-balancing policy such as AA must lower the male performance and raise the female performance for the reason given above.</p>
<p>I feel terrible for the best applicants who work their asses off in high school and then lose out to someone who is less qualified but happens to be a minority. Affirmative Action is a complete sham. Elite institutions should embrace meritocracy and stop assembling classes with "balanced demographics". If a person is qualified they should be accepted because they deserve it.</p>
<p>Last time I checked, the "best applicants who work their asses off in high school" get into at least one of their top schools. </p>
<p>Don't make it sound that in trying to assemble a culturally diverse class, schools are committing some wrong. Qualified people are always rejected because of numbers. Every single student admitted into an elite college deserves to be there.</p>
<p>Another point I thought about is how the times are different from before. I admit for fields like theoretical/experimental physics, chemistry, mathematics (applied instead of experimental), being able to study hard, etc etc as has been cited in this thread is important.</p>
<p>But aren't the sciences changing as well? Some of the skills that are crucial in new fields might require things that aren't necessarily rewarded in the traditional sense. Especially in Biology, which like it or not will have its true glory revealed in this century. MIT has emerged as a powerhouse for bioengineering in the last few years.</p>
<p>Another thing I think is that MIT is a school of Engineering. Engineering requires context to advance. How do you know what problems to solve if you aren't familiar with the problems? The vast majority of problems don't lie in a textbook but are derived from real world experience. In this context, bringing in people from different backgrounds to form a diverse net that covers a lot of society, and then giving them all a first rate education seems more productive to MIT's mission in the long run.</p>
<p>Sorry, I should have added that not having a recommendation from the Athletic Dept does <em>not</em> hurt one's chances, but having one does give athletic students a chance for extra points.</p>
<p>Ben, thanks for the thumbs up. The idea is not hard to come by if you have ever spent quality time at 77 Mass Ave, Cambridge and noticed the demographics.</p>
<p>The phrasing of the argument (post #471) might obscure the fact that it remains true even if the women have an amazingly strong "self-selected" distribution of credentials that is better than that of the men, and even if the minorities have a better distribution than that of the whites, Asians, rich people, internationals, etc. I think everyone believes that the minority distribution is in fact weaker for both men and women, but that would only magnify the size of the effect. What brings the effect into existence is that there is, for whatever reason, a shortage of URM in both the male and the female applicant pools who would be admitted under a procedure that is race-blind within each gender.</p>
<p>Question for Ben or Joe or anyone who has been on a tech-school admissions committee: what does a "self-selected" (more than the men) female applicant list look like? There is no huge difference in the male vs female yield, but the women are admitted at much higher rate even at Caltech.<br>
What features of the credential distribution account for this, beyond the general idea of credentials declining less steeply as you go down the list of women?</p>