Remember that the defer accepts are about 200-250 of the 6182.
Theyre eval’ed separately.
Sheesh. I thought MIT would take at least 1600 kids in total. This sucks.
“Remember that the defer accepts are about 200-250 of the 6182.
Theyre eval’ed separately.”
no, they aren’t
@FoundDad – where did you get those male/female numbers? because we don’t publish them, and also, they’re not right.
So 1410 acceptances in all, and a class size of roughly 1150. If they expect to fill the class with that, that would require a yield rate of 81.6%.
For the class of 2022, they offered admission to 1464 students, and didn’t take anyone off the weight list. If they hit their ~1150 target, that would be a yield of 78.6%.
While a 3% yield increase in yield is possible, that is a notable increase. Without more data, my first suspicion is that they overshot last year and are looking to make sure they don’t this year.
MIT wants 1100 freshmen. That’s a yield of 78% which is reasonable. I think very few to none will be taken from the waitlist so plan accordingly if you’ve been waitlisted.
@mitchris Thanks for all of your insights on these boards over the years.
I don’t know about OPs current assumptions, but 2017/18 CDS (most recently available) does show a 69/31 M/F applicant split. http://ir.mit.edu/cds-2018/#C
@MITChris - Thank you for your feedback and insights. Obviously the results came out last night and there is no way that I would be privy to all the exact information but I am sure that my numbers are very close based on the information available.
@Mwfan1921 - is correct – the data that is on the MIT website is as follows:
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied: 13993 (69%)
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied: 6254 (31%)
Total Accepted 1452
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted: 734 (51%)
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted: 718 (49%)
So we understand that MIT accepts approx. 51% to 49% ratio men to women. We also understand that MIT receives approx. 69% applications from men and about 31% from women. Taking this information and the information that was have provided regarding the EA round and the RD round acceptance – I extrapolated the following:
Applications: 21,312
Accepted (EA+RD): 1,410 (6.6% based on 21,312 applicants)
EA Applicants: 9,600
EA Accepted: 707 (7.4% based on 9,600 applicants)
Men EA Assumed (51%): 357
Women EA Assumed (49%): 350
Deferred: 6,182
Regular: 11,712
Deferred + Regular: 17,894
Accepted Regular (including deferred): 703 (3.9% based on 17,894 RD & deferred)
Men RD - Assumed (51%): 355 (2.9% based on 69% of men RD & deferred)
Women RD - Assumed (49%): 348 (6.3% based on 31% of women RD & deferred)
Total men (assumed) who were accepted (51%): 713
Total women (assumed) who were accepted (49%): 697
I believe the information above might not be 1000% accurate, but should be reasonably close and inferable based on the information that is available.
These numbers are really steep.
For tech schools you can literally see a statistical 2x-3x advantage for females.
Wonder if the same is for males in art colleges.
@MITChris Given the ratio of RD admits and EA admits, isnt the defer admit rate a bit unfair for the RD’s number wise?
I mean we can clearly see a higher acceptance rate for EA, then RD, and then Defers, but The RD and Defer rates are bordering in.
Also, assuming the gender based division is correct, doesnt that clearly suggest an extremely competitive disadvantage for males?
Note: So Deferred apps are read along with the RD’s right? But with the same enthusiasm and weightage? I thought since theyre already read once, and IMO not much changes in the second read, they are at a statistical/normal disadvantage.
I might be wrong on some of this, since idk about the ever-changing stats for MIT which are sometimes surprising
I just felt compelled to debunk some of myths, which have been debunked millions times before. Numbers fool you if you don’t understand the context.
1st, MIT is known as a tough school, many kids dare not to apply. Girls mature earlier and tend to be more realistic. Many boys are following peers to apply for tech schools. It is just their thing. That creates the difference of gender in applicants numbers.
2nd, the girls who applied MIT (and a few other top tech schools) are self-selected bunch. They are against all odds, often labeled as not popular, not cool, nerdy. Their love for math, devotion to science, and pursue of their passions are unmatched by most boys. Girls overall/average quality of applicants pool is just simply higher than boy pool.
3rd, USAMO is a great achievement, but not a determining factor. MIT has tons of applicants with IMO/MOP, ICHO, IOI, Regeneron, Siemens, and many other top STEM competitions. It would be ridiculous to fill classes purely based on USAMO. (There are 500 USAMO kids each year, filling a class of 1150 with all of them?)
4th, comparing with other schools, MIT has the most upright, unbiased, caring admission staff. It takes no legacy, no backdoor donation for admission, no political power influence. MIT doesn’t play tricks. Most kids from powerful and wealthy families go for the school next door. (I.e. daughters of US president and Chinese president, CEO of Huawei … It is a country club there.) Those kids don’t come to MIT because they would not survive MIT’s hard classes.
5th, MIT is one of the most compassionate school. Read @MITChris blog after RD, what he said to those not admitted showed how much comfort and encouragements he gave to them. I was in tears. (At 1990, I was admitted to MIT grad school, but as a poor international student without financial aid, I could not afford $21K cost. Looking back, I did well in my life after graduating from a top state school. Thank you MIT, you inspired me back then!) His blog reflects MIT’s class above all others, why it is the best college in the world.
I attach it below. So for kids who are not admitted, please get up and start pushing, never stop trying. For parents, please stop wasting time on this useless data analysis, enjoy every moment of the next few months while your kids are still at home. They are leaving.
“If you are among the many stellar students to whom we are not offering admissions, then all I can remind you is that success is not always a straight line. That your path isn’t something MIT sets you on, it’s something you make yourself. And if you spend the next few years trying to make wherever you are as amazing as you can (as you already are), then someday you’ll look back on this Pi Day and realize it all worked out okay.” – @MITChris
Thank you for your post, Sleepy Willow. I agree with you. MIT is genuine. It strives to serve students as best as it can. If you’re lucky enough to have gained an acceptance, think hard before committing elsewhere. If you’ve been unlucky, take this as a challenge. Prove to MIT and yourself that it passed up someone who won’t let a rejection letter define your future. Go make a success of yourself by studying hard, being kind, by “making the world a better place”. (This has become MIT’s motto in recent years.) Wonderful opportunities await at whatever school you attend.
@brassratter could not be more true!
I think some of the points above may all be all true and accurate. I don’t think that the intent is to bash MIT’s system and core values.
In one of the blogs by @MITChris he states “more than half the students who apply to MIT every year are qualified for admittance, by which I mean the majority of applicants are sufficiently prepared to do the work at MIT.” He does not state that more than half of the boys are qualified while the girl applicants are all qualified. MIT’s own published numbers have established that boys constitute 69% of the applicant pool. In other words, if you “weed out” the boys who are not qualified, you would still have a significant number of very qualified males that are statistically higher in numbers than the remaining qualified female applicants.
I have seen the argument that girls are a “self selecting” group perpetuated on this forum and by various quotes from MIT admissions. I presume that the concept that is being disseminated is that 50% of the boys are not qualified but most if not all the girl applicants are qualified. This would bring the percentages of qualified male and female applicants (from 69/31 M/F) closer to equilibrium which would make it supportable to have 51%- 49% acceptance rate.
The salient fact remains that the odds are much better for female applicants than it is for male applicants to be accepted to MIT.
@FoundDad Seeing the statistical turnover, I agree and attest to that.
FoundDad, I find this analysis somewhat ludicrous…more than half can mean anything percent wise…comparing odds without the whole picture and context is oversimplification of the process.
If by “the odds” you mean numerators and denominators, then sure, but w/ respect, that’s not salient to anything about how our process actually works, or the quality of our decisions or community. I am making this point because I would contest e.g. @TheGuy1 above saying that men are at a “competitive disadvantage.” This is only true if you reverse causality and confuse the reason for the result. As I wrote here: https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/the-difficulty-with-data/
@Sleepy_willow made a lot of other great points that I just want to +1.
I went to a STEM school in the late eighties and there were not too many girls in our class that it was depressing! I suspect the same was true in MIT at the time. I can understand that it is an institutional priority that the entering classes that get admitted to MIT are more balanced based on gender. Since MIT attracts many qualified students of both genders and since there appears to be less girls applying (albeit very qualified), then it is quite obvious that statistically its more favorable for qualified girls than qualified guys to be admitted. Without a doubt there are so many other factors at play when evaluating students for admittance and it is not just about “numerators and denominators” but the numbers do support that argument and numbers DO very much matter.
I agree with @sterinaldi
THe issue is that since the admissions process is so shrouded, we dont know for sure if its a statistical byproduct or a promotional scenario.
@Sleepy_willow While I agree with most you said, I will point that there are not 500 USAMO kids. 500 total is combined total for UASJMO and USAMO. Moreover, not everyone in applying as they are not in senior year yet. On top of that, almost a half of students qualify for USAMO in senior year, after applications and results are over. Given this, it will be hard to find 100 USAMO kids in one application cycle.
Moreover, a lot of these top math kids are also publishing papers, competing at top levels in physics/computing/chemistry olympiads and winning, doing community service and volunteering, and making robots. There is a reason National Physics Team is often composed of USA(J)MO winners.
Apart from that, there are not that many IOI/ICho/IPhO. I mean, team is composed of 4-6 members out of whole damn country. You think they are not qualified to study at MIT? There are not that many academic stars as you think. A 4.0 GPA and 800 in SAT is nowhere comparable to USAMO/IOI/ or such achievement. For qualifying for USAMO, a student will have to learn 10 times more math than is taught at high school, and then some. They will have to spend 1000s of hours on top of everything else. It is not same as starting a club at school and having weekly meaningless meetings.
Regeneron STS results are not even out at application time so they don’t count. Siemens Competition produced 100 winners but it is not there any more, so it is out. Intel ISEF does not compare to Regeneron/Davidson/Siemens as its judging process is too awkward. A lot of splendid projects do not cross school level judging, as they are not judged by professionals but by clueless parents. Davidson has hardly 10-20 awards each year, not all of them are applying. So pool is too tiny.