<p>"MIT is committed to admitting all minorities who we feel are academically qualified to attend the Institute."</p>
<p>Is MIT allowed to say this? Also, what does academically qualified to attend MIT mean? 2300+ SAT and all A's? Or is it, like I've heard before, 650+ in all sections of the SAT's and B and better grades in all classes? If it's the latter, how do the ORMS at MIT feel about it?</p>
<p>it's the latter.</p>
<p>that quote's a little out of context.
[quote]
MIT is also one of the most diverse universities in the country. To maintain and enhance this diversity, MIT makes a special effort to recruit and admit highly qualified candidates from all socio-economic levels, as well as traditionally underrepresented minority groups: African American, Native American, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican. MIT is committed to admitting all minorities who we feel are academically qualified to attend the Institute.
[/quote]
[quote]
As we evaluate each candidate, we consider his/her environment as a backdrop for his/her accomplishments. We try to understand where the student is from, the socioeconomic level, the size of the family, and the high school preparation. We ask ourselves if there are any social, physical, cultural, socio-economic or gender issues at play in the case. We want to see that the student is making the most of available opportunities and creating new opportunities for personal and intellectual growth.</p>
<p>We do not read or select by geographic region, but certainly pay close attention to a student's surrounding environment and how it has informed him/her. Specific stories and examples from the student, teachers, guidance counselor and interviewer can give us better "context" and are extremely valuable in evaluating a candidate's competitiveness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you don't mind me asking, what does URMS/ORMS stand for?</p>
<p>edit: got it. over/under represented races (thanks google)</p>
<p>well, as someone who this probably worked against, I'm all for it. Enhancing the cultural diversity on campus is a valid a "hook" as, say, a violin player enhancing the arts on campus. In fact, it probably effects me more directly, as I am a member of the MIT community, while only a fan of the arts.</p>
<p>URM=underrepresented minority (i.e. african americans, native americans, hispanic americans)
ORM=overrepresented minority (i.e. asians)</p>
<p>Being realistic here, I think colleges including MIT give a slight if not major preference to minorities. I will be attending MIT '11 , but I wouldn't say that MIT goes that low "650" in all sections. But reading about the stats of some people that get rejected, I can say that some preference is given to minorities. Of course, they wouldn't take an incompetent person just cuz he is a minority, there are plenty of minorities nowadays to build a decent pool. For example, I got accepted to MIT :) Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Columbia, WashU, Caltech, Williams, Johns Hopkins , but I would probably not have gotten accepted to so many had I been asian, to be frank. But yeah, you would have to be blind not to see that ORMs must feel like they are getting screwed over, I know I would feel like that.
On the positive side of giving preference to minorites + women at MIT, it has become increasingly popular than Caltech, just take a look at the admissions pool, and I dont think that much has been comprimised, MIT continues to be the leading institution. The major reason for this is that any person admitted regardless of their scores can still complete and pass the classes if they are willing to put effort into it.</p>
<p>just curious, about the socio<em>economic</em> part, I thought I read somewhere that they don't look at your financial aid application/financial circumstances when you apply? So I guess their picture of your socio<em>economic</em> level comes from your essays?</p>
<p>More likely from your zip code and high school. They will give more credit to a kid who took 3 APs when the average taken is 1 than to a kid who took 5 APs when the average at the school is 6. MIT is notorious for rewarding the "delta" in achievement as opposed to the absolute value. If you performed well above expectation but not superlative stats you have a higher admit chance than if you had great stats but were expected to do so. The overachievers tend to continue to do well at MIT and often catch up to the better prepared students with very strong advising and support if necessary.</p>
<p>to Larch: Well, if you got into CalTech, then it looks like you wouldn't have needed a boost for getting into MIT. (Caltech does not practice AA.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech does not practice AA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Caltech certainly practices AA and has never claimed otherwise, although they may be slightly less aggressive than MIT at recruting women and minorities. The latest published numbers for CalTech in 2005 show a 30% admit rate for women compared to a 17% rate for men.</p>
<p>What really hurts Caltech is its 25% lower yield on women as compared to men. (30% vs 40%). MIT on the other hand has only about a 10% difference in yield (63% v. 70% in 2006) and that difference is narrowing every year as MIT is becoming increasingly popular with women applicants. </p>
<p>The data tends to support the fact that the large gender imbalance hurts the overall yield for CalTech. Fewer male and female applicants are interested in applying and enrolling in a school with such a large gender differential. MIT's strong yield increase over the past decade has strongly correlated with its improved gender parity. With some department such as biology graduating more women than men, women have become increasingly comfortable at MIT. This in turn has led more men who did not want to be in an already single gender environment to apply and enroll. At this point, MIT hardly ever loses a cross admit battle to CalTech unless the student gets a free ride at Caltech and they lose fewer and fewer cross admits to Harvard, the only school they still have a deficit against. In 2007, only Harvard had a greater overall yield at 80% as MIT pulled even with Yale at 70%.</p>
<p>cellardweller,</p>
<p>Can you provide links to your data?</p>
<p>Particularly, claims like "At this point, MIT hardly ever loses a cross admit battle to CalTech unless the student gets a free ride at Caltech" appear highly speculative.</p>
<p>The admission and yield data is straight from the CDS reports. </p>
<p>The discussion on cross admits betwen MIT and its competitors was part of a review of 2007 admission statistics by the MIT admission office with the ECs (educational counselors) during CPW in April 2007. Admissions expressed more long term concern about Harvard beefing up its engineering programs than from its traditional competitors. </p>
<p>The comment was not intended as a derogatory against CalTech. For its enrollment, CalTech has as good a yield as any other top school in the US including Amherst, Williams or Pomona. </p>
<p>Simply put, for many applicants, size matters (no pun intended) and MIT competes more broadly with Stanford and Harvard in science than with any other school in engineering. Over half of MIT graduates are now outside of engineering including over two thirds of the women. MIT has increasingly become a strong destination for premeds and life science majors, an area with no overlap with CalTech for instance but strong overlap with Harvard and Yale. This shows how the gradual increase in women enrollment is helping to change MIT's competitive position from a very narrowly focused engineering and natural sciences oriented institute to a broader based science and technology center and nowhere is the change greater than in the life sciences. The BCS program built around the largest neuroscience center in the world has become a magnet for top male and female life science majors. So is the Biology department partnering with the Whitehead and Broad Institutes. Both attract over 60% females. MIT is evolving rapidly and most would agree for the better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Phil, going by last year's mutual admits, it's about 19% to Caltech, 64% to MIT, and 17% to a different college altogether. The response rate to our study was 92% (1390 of 1508 admits responding) so it should be fairly accurate.</p>
<p>Posted by: Ben on March 15, 2006 03:56 PM
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, I just googled MIT Caltech cross admits. 92% response rate is almost unbelievably high for all admitted students- but that's what ben says and I don't think he would lie to us. I guess a more relevant question would be how many of the 19% that chose Caltech received scholarship incentive, but that's a little too insidious to put on a card.</p>
<p>Cellardwellar, students who worked in the Caltech admissions office told me that they don't practice AA. In fact, they told me that if the qualifications are equal between a URM and an ORM, they flip a coin to decide who they will accept. I'm just taking their word for it. </p>
<p>They may officially have the AA policy, but AA can be interpreted in different ways. One definiton is that they actively try to ensure that there is no discrimination against URMs in the admissions process.</p>
<p>I don't know. I defer to the Caltech people on this one.</p>
<p>Collegealum:</p>
<p>I pulled this from the Caltech web site:</p>
<p>
[quote]
California Institute of Technology is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and encourages the applications of qualified women, minorities, veterans and disabled persons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I realize that this quote is specifically geared at employment as opposed to students admissions but it somewhat hard to reconcile with flipping a coin. Even though the numbers are not as telling as MIT's, Caltech does make an effort at recruiting more women as the admissions data shows. It could be argued that the disparity in admission rates between men and women at both Caltech and MIT is largely due to greater self-selection in the women pool which has certainly been my experience, but it does nevertheless require a willingness by both institutions to to take a holistic approach to admissions and look beyond the raw statistics. I would call that an enlightened form of AA.</p>
<p>You can't see everything just by percentage though!
this doesn't really regard URM just the sexes >.<
Not trying to be sexist and TRYING to be NOT overly generalizing (but sometimes it might be needed to make a point)
What kind of male students apply to MIT/Caltech?
MIT: Some very very genius people, some people with good scores and interest, some that just apply randomly , other REALLY REALLY random people that just... apply for the sake of applying there (YES , these people DO exist!)
Caltech: since it's a bit less well known, the pool gets a bit smaller without too much change is over all distribution, but a bit less random people.
What kind of female students would apply to MIT/Caltech?
MIT: students interests in engineering , science, and others that is offered at MIT and have the courage to go to something that is said to be male oriented. a bit less random applicants
Caltech: more serious types that aren't easily scared away by the gender ratio and rumors about Caltech guys.
(don't take everything(or anything) that i say, just very, and probably bad generalizations. to make a not very significant point)
iono about the MIT applicants from my school this year cuz the decision came out on a sat day (no one at school), but there are A LOT of random people that applied to Caltech. (random as in they don't do math, or science.... or much of anything that Caltech is known to be. funnily enough, only one got rejected, 3 accepted ,and ALL the rest were wait listed)</p>
<p>I'm not sure if there is AA at Caltech, and I am not trying to disprove that there is AA at MIT. I just want to say that it is less than people make it seem. Female pool is a bit more self selecting(not to the full extend of like MIT's 26% for girl, 9% for guy acceptance rate.but Caltech's 30% to 17% isn't that unreasonable)</p>
<p>cellardweller -- you evidently do not know what you are talking about. I was on the Caltech admissions committee and there is no affirmative action in the sense of giving an edge to women or minorities. As for yield and scholarships, you can talk all you want, but the truth is that Caltech is harder than MIT, and most students would prefer easier grading and fewer hard required courses. Yield isn't everything, and Caltech decided a long time ago to provide a serious education instead of selling out (like MIT) and trying to be a Harvard clone.</p>
<p>Looking "beyond the numbers" is NOT "enlightened affirmative action". Obviously, understanding a student's background is important, but AA as practiced by MIT and others involves judging students on a different scale based on race and/or gender. Caltech doesn't do that. Caltech takes into account your opportunities, not your color or your chromosomes.</p>
<p>Btw,
[quote]
MIT has increasingly become a strong destination for premeds and life science majors, an area with no overlap with CalTech for instance but strong overlap with Harvard and Yale.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This shows that you are completely clueless about this subject. I would suggest you get the facts right before posting untrue nonsense. If you claim that what you say has any foundation, I would request some evidence other than your say-so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, what does academically qualified to attend MIT mean? 2300+ SAT and all A's? Or is it, like I've heard before, 650+ in all sections of the SAT's and B and better grades in all classes? If it's the latter, how do the ORMS at MIT feel about it?
[/quote]
[quote]
It's the latter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually know of a Hispanic who got 700+ on all sections of the SAT I and got all 800s (5 tests) on his SAT IIs, as well as getting straight 5s (7 tests) on his APs. I believe he also had a 4.0 UW GPA. He didn't get into MIT. He's currently at Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>As for my opinions on this issue... I was browsing the Harvey Mudd website a while back and I noticed their "affirmative action" policy, which actually isn't much of AA at all. Their "AA" policy is more of "we need to find new ways to attract qualified minorities to apply to the school so we can be more diverse" than MIT's policy of admitting unqualified minorities to increase diversity. We need more universities like Harvey Mudd with this kind of attitude. There are very intelligent minorities out there (my stepdad is black and his entire family is incredibly intelligent -- unfortunately, they all go to Ivys so there's nothing much left for schools like HM) -- it's just that attracting them is sometimes difficult, but giving up like MIT has done is pathetic and beneficial to no one.</p>
<p>Since Caltech has been brought into the mix, I would like to say this. Caltech actually brags about its diversity on its website (despite the fact that it's probably the least diverse "elite" school in America), but it doesn't seem like it's doing anything to increase diversity (of course, admitting unqualified minorities is not the answer). I'm sure it would be beneficial for there to exist some diversity on Caltech's campus, so I think following Harvey Mudd's policies certainly wouldn't hurt. (I know you don't like being compared to HM, Ben Golub, sorry.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Their "AA" policy is more of "we need to find new ways to attract qualified minorities to apply to the school so we can be more diverse" than MIT's policy of admitting unqualified minorities to increase diversity.
[/quote]
Of course, "unqualified" is in the eyes of the beholder.</p>
<p>Not that I particularly want to get into this discussion today, particularly because nobody is being fair at all, but I'll give my opinion as an ORM at MIT: once you're at MIT, nobody cares what color or gender you are, as long as you can do the work, and the post-entrance statistics show that people in general can do the work. And for my part, I'd rather go to school with anybody other than a self-aggrandizing wank who thinks that his 2400 means he's the be-all and end-all of existence and is entitled to walk into any school in America. That's what I see a large part of this debate being about -- a contest to decide who's the smartest, most amazing wank.</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>Sorry if I struck a nerve but getting overly personal when you are on the defensive does not help your case.</p>
<p>Fisrt of all, I may not be a student on the admissions committee (is that what makes your statements credible?) but as a long time MIT alumni, parent of MIT student and current EC (educational counselor) I certainly know a fair amount about my own institution.</p>
<p>In regards to Caltech's AA policies, I obviously have no first hand knowledge but I based my opinion on what Caltech itself publishes and actual admission numbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there is no affirmative action in the sense of giving an edge to women or minorities
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that. I just used Caltech's own statement that they will give minorities a fair opportunity. I also used Caltech's own admission numbers of 30% vs 17% of men versus women to highlight that Caltech does in fact seek out women and admit them on the basis of more than just SAT scores and USAMO qualifications. We both know that if raw stats were the only ones used for admission the admission ratio would not be as as skewed, even accounting for self-selection. I just inferred from these numbers that Caltech must use some form of holistic admission process (which they also admit to) just as MIT and other top universities use. This means that they will take into account gender as well as different socoeconomic backgrounds in their decision process. This does not mean that they give an edge to women or minorities any more than MIT does, simply that they look at the entire picture. In my book, holistic admission is a form of enlightened AA, fully in line with the most recent Supreme Court decisions. That Caltech is moving in that direction (albeit more slowly than MIT) is only commendable, not something to be resented. It will eventually make Caltech a more attractive destination for students of all genders and backgrounds without affecting in any way the quality of the institution. The fear mongering by some on these boards about women lowering the standards at technical institutions is reminiscent of the attacks against women entering law schools in the 60's and lowering the standards at places like Columbia and Harvard. Of course, nothing like that happened and if MIT's near parity is an example, most people (including the faculty) would agree that the overall student body at MIT has never been stronger. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech is harder than MIT
[/quote]
What is that supposed to mean? That more people fail to graduate from Caltech than MIT? Is that something desirable? I seem to recall a post by Sakky not too long ago bemoaning that fact. Should a top institution seek to attract the very best in the nation and still fail over 15% of the ones it admits? Is that fair? Can't Caltech find even 200 qualified students a year across the world that can handle its curriculum so that it feels compelled to weed out a substantial number after they committed to attend? If the ideal model you propose for Caltech is the bootcamp where the best can fail, no wonder the yield is so low. When seven out ten admitted students vote with their feet and decide not to enroll, despite massive incentives, there must be something wrong with that picture. </p>
<p>So, supposedly, when MIT's yield climbs and it enrolls seven out of ten of its admitted students (and the vast majority of cross admits with Caltech and virtually every other school), then they are a sellout because they have cheapened their curriculum by making it too easy. How preposterous! So now MIT is lumped together with other sellouts (Harvard and Yale) , has a bunch of cream-puff majors (which ones?), has vast grade inflation... You must be kidding. </p>
<p>I think in all honesty that you are failing to see the reality, in all likelihood blinded by your allegiance to your alma-mater. MIT students are overwhelmingly happy with the education they receive at MIT. According to the institute's administration, student body and faculty, the more diverse enrollment and particularly the large influx of highly qualified women has strengthened rather than weakened the quality of graduates. To be lumped in this regard with Harvard and Yale is not bad company in my book. At least the vast majority of their admits seem to want to go there. </p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT has increasingly become a strong destination for premeds and life science majors, an area with no overlap with CalTech for instance but strong overlap with Harvard and Yale.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is it specifically about this quote that makes me so clueless? </p>
<p>That there a lot of premeds at MIT unlike at Caltech?
That MIT has some of the best life science programs in the country bar none?</p>
<p>Ask a detailed question if you can formulate it clearly and I will answer it. Otherwise, you can keep your personal attacks and should probably return under your rock in the Caltech boards rather than pathetically rant on the MIT boards.</p>
<p>cardweller --</p>
<p>First, your claim that the life sciences at Caltech are not big majors or that they don't attract a lot of people is completely nuts, much like the rest of your discourse on this subject. You have no idea what the student distribution is. You don't even know how many premeds there are! Until you can back up your statements with some numbers that even vaguely relate to this subject, you have my permission to eat lint.</p>
<p>Second, I don't see why it is difficult for you to understand the difference between "holistic" and "biased" admissions. Looking beyond SAT scores does not in any way imply giving an advantage to any underrepresented group, or reading their applications differently. You CAN do it in a holistic admissions process, but you need not, just like you COULD take into account hair color, but need not. Caltech doesn't use its holistic process as a cover for judging some colors and some chromosomes by a different standard, while MIT does. The advantage women have in Caltech's admissions numbers is explained by self-selection and nothing else.</p>
<p>Third, you are the one who took the simple fact that Caltech doesn't practice AA and decided to start page-long rants about the institution.</p>
<p>In any case, you and sakky, faithful worshipers at the temple of yield, get really boring really fast. To you, there is only one value that matters, whereas some schools still view racial and gender discrimination as something to be avoided. Of course MIT has sold out by judging people based on their colors and their chromosomes so they can have nicer looking diversity numbers, and that's shameful, no matter what the yield ends up being.</p>
<p>Your example of women and law schools tells one side of the story: changing the admissions process to shape the class in desirable ways can be really good sometimes. But the example of Jews at the Ivies in the early 1900's tells another. At that time, as Jerome Karabel documents in The Chosen, the top-end Ivies (HYP) instituted very strong but plausibly deniable discrimination against Jews so that anti-Semitic WASPs would still want to come. Harvard's and Princeton's admissions statistics skyrocketed while Columbia, which didn't institute anti-Jew quotas until later, suffered badly. I am sure you, honorable cardweller, would have been right there defending these enlightened policies and pointing to the yield numbers to show that the school with the most impressive numbers must be doing something big right.</p>
<p>Am I claiming that today's discrimination by elite schools against Asians is equivalent to anti-Semitism? A little bit, but certainly it's not as bad. This does show conclusively though, that yield-driven arguments can lead to disastrously wrong conclusions and be used to justify policies which are deeply repulsive to values that we (erm, I mean, some of us) consider more important than yield.</p>