<p>Since 50/50 is a blurry target- I'll gather there's a range of acceptable gender ratios, say limit is 60-40 in favor of either, it means that there is still a pretty good shot for admissions not to have to "tweak" the numbers at all. Regardless of what I believe, I mean I think the argument goes against the assumption that 1000 qualified are girls and 4000 are boys, rather, out of a pool of 2500 girls and 7000 boys, 1000 qualified are girls and 1000 qualified are boys. In which case, girls would win half the battles in your thought experiment that follows even if genders were blotted out.</p>
<p>It sounds unlikely that it works out so neatly so naturally, and I've never much bought it myself, but I have always been quite convinced that whatever MIT does Caltech does as well. Whatever difference in final enrolled gender ratio between the two schools is due to a) an even more skewed male vs female applications pool and b) poor female yield (which they try to help by practicing AA targeted merit scholarships). </p>
<p>The MIT vs Caltech gender admissions comparison is discussed extensively here:</p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/california-institute-technology/450969-caltech-mit-rejects-10.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/california-institute-technology/450969-caltech-mit-rejects-10.html</a></p>
<p>So to me, since Caltech "definitely does not practice AA" (which I'm a little wary of, mostly because of Post #20), then MIT must not either. And more and more that might be possible in my mind. But I suspect that they are both affect by the same degree of bias (whether it be deserved or undeserved is another question altogether) that lead to similar admissions results.</p>
<p>pebbles has cute cats</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure that Caltech doesn't practice AA in admissions. (They do in scholarships, as Dauntless said) In any case, what does post 20 have to do with it? </p>
<p>MIT on the other hand claims to practice AA in admissions.</p>
<p>MIT</a> Admissions: Affirmative Action</p>
<p>If the argument you're trying to make is that the private admissions practices of these two institutions are similar, I suppose that's somewhat valid although I wonder how you would obtain any evidence supporting this point. Publicly, though, their stances on AA are quite different.</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but my guess is that gender AA is slight at MIT these days. I think we should do away with it because its presence causes people to vastly overestimate its influence on admissions. If the female enrollment goes down a couple of percent, what's the difference?</p>
<p>I think also MIT's change in policy to overlook relatively low stats in some cases contributes to the idea that gender-based AA is a large factor. It seems like if its a girl with low stats that got in, they assume it must be because of AA even though my feeling is that that wasn't the reason behind the decision.</p>
<p>How would this look? </p>
<p>2400
800, 800, 790 (SAT II)
5, 5, 4 (Not the best APs, I know)</p>
<p>Comments welcome. Thanks!</p>
<p>1) From what I heard, yes
2) Probably; 5 APs is definite enough
3) Yes; I'm really sorry about your cousin. </p>
<p>Good Luck!</p>
<p>I'm separating race/economic status-based AA and gender-based AA. I'm speaking only about the latter, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the official stance the admissions officers at MIT take is that there is race-based AA (so general AA) but not gender-based AA (the argument being that the women in the pool do not need it?). Anyhow I don't care, since I think in this society, the issue of AA has permeated to the extent that it's hard as a single person evaluating a set of applicants to be unaffected by the mode of thinking that goes into it-- sort of an extension on post #20 I suppose. And since our macroscopic goals are still the same-- that is MIT and Caltech look for the same certain qualities in their admits and both hope to achieve as close to gender balance as possible (evidenced by the female targeted scholarships at Caltech)-- and the outcomes quite similar (as cited by the % of female accepts vs. % of male for both schools), that what actually happens behind closed doors at both schools is more or less the same.</p>
<p>collegealum--I agree that if the AA is in fact slight then it should just be done away with altogether. Certainly stops people from wondering. </p>
<p>pebbles--MIT has always been somewhat deliberately hazy on the point of gender-based AA. For example, Ben Jones said</p>
<p>"Having said that, as an admissions committee we do believe strongly in admitting a class that is diverse in every way (gender and ethnicity are just scratching the surface)."</p>
<p>MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: "Brain Dump"</p>
<p>I make no claims as to the extent of said affirmative action, just that I believe it exists. Note that I don't necessarily think this is bad, per se.</p>
<p>I do however have to vehemently disagree with your point ending in "...what actually happens behind closed doors...is more or less the same"</p>
<p>I think that the attitudes of admissions officers at Caltech and MIT are radically different. I have never met an MIT admissions officer personally, but I have read their blog posts. I do however know most of the admissions officers at Caltech. Whether that practically makes a huge difference in the makeup of the respective Universities' classes isn't really my point (although in my opinion there is certainly a significant, if not huge, difference). I suppose the fact that I am somewhat of an intellectual idealist leads me to prefer the mindset of admissions officers at Caltech. It's not necessarily better or worse--just different.</p>