<p>Are there a lot of them? I heard that the man/girl ratio is like 3:1 or something. Is this true? Because I might not apply anymore if that is the case.</p>
<p>If that’s your priority this early on, I suggest you to not apply. You may not get in anyway.</p>
<p>I SWEAR the ratio is around** 1:1!** !!! Of Class of 2013 it’s 58% M to 42% F . And I think of class 2014 there will be more female students here. Try to search the school website for incoming class student profile, and Collegeboard. Your information is exceedingly ** outdated.** I don’t understand why so many people think Tech schools have few female students. There’s enough female scientists (both in quality and in quantity) nowadays. It’s not Marie Curie’s age any longer! In fact, from what I hear, there are more F students major in science than M students in recent years. :D</p>
<p>Well it’s actually not outdated since I believe collegeboard factors in graduate students, a higher percentage of whom are male. But you’re not looking to date graduate students!</p>
<p>From the mouth of a guy I know who goes there:</p>
<p>If you want to go to Caltech and also meet girls while you’re there, you can do it just fine.</p>
<p>If you want to meet girls and also go to Caltech while you’re at it… perhaps it’s not the right fit for you.</p>
<p>If you’re this concerned now about having a dating life, I would also second the thought that Caltech is not the right fit. You might have too many regrets later about what your life would’ve been at a more normal college.</p>
<p>There is a debate going on the Caltech Student Newspaper on the number of females at Caltech. The concern is that affirmative action played a part in the increase in the number of females. The admissions office categorically denies that affirmative action played a part in the number of females admitted and that no standards have been compromised.</p>
<p>Hence, one thing you can be sure, all female candidates admitted are very high performing (usually top of their HS class), show great potential in math and science and not frazzled by the exhausting work requirements. So ask yourself the question “Is that that the type of person I want to date?” As others have pointed out, there are enough females to date (especially with the increase in last few years) but they may or may not be your type.</p>
<p><a href=“http://tech.caltech.edu/archive/05_03_2010.pdf[/url]”>http://tech.caltech.edu/archive/05_03_2010.pdf</a></p>
<p>*Percentage of Admitted Females Raises Questions
By Sarah Marzen
Copy Editor
The female to male admit ratio at Caltech has risen steadily over the past four years, even though the percentage of applicants that are female has stayed steady at around 25%. </p>
<p>Four years ago, Caltech admitted females and males at roughly the same rates, and the admitted class was 28.5% female. This year, Caltech reached an all-time high: females were admitted at nearly three times the rate of males, and the percentage of admitted females hit 45%.</p>
<p>For many students, the increase in the percentage of admitted females is cause for celebration.</p>
<p>But in lounges, hallways, at Chandler, and behind closed doors, people speculate as to why the ratio of women to men is climbing. Could it be that Caltech’s notoriously meritocratic admissions process is practicing some form of affirmative action?</p>
<p>“No,” said Ray Prado, interim Admissions Director. “It’s all in recruitment.” Caltech’s admissions process, he said, has no favoritism towards women or minorities or anybody else. “Our admissions process ensures that we admit the best prepared applicants.” Caltech students and faculty directly help decide the incoming freshmen class, unlike at any other college. Student and faculty involvement is prized by Admissions staffers, according to Prado, and helps safeguard the meritocracy of the admissions process.
*</p>
<p>Well, looking through the admitted student websites, I will note that the females generally seem less socially awkward than the guys (I mean that in the least offensive way possible, seriously). So if you discount the guys that aren’t interested in and probably won’t be capable of getting girls, the ratio’s probably pretty near 50/50. And I say this as a straight female. So honestly, don’t worry about it.</p>
<p>Although I will say that I wish the 3:1 ratio were still around ahah.
And I’ll also say that I would not be surprised if some kind of AA were taken in favor of females. I’m still have no idea how I got into Caltech, and the more I read about other accepted students, the more incredulous I become. Although I feel like I’m qualified enough for Caltech and similar schools, I really had nothing that stood out. Aside from being a girl. :D</p>
<p>I haven’t looked up an English word for a while. Until CanaryK wrote “incredulous.”</p>
<p>Well, I didn’t apply to Caltech because it offers no financial aid to transfer students… so even UCSD > Caltech for me.</p>
<p>Who cares if there is an affirmative action for girls?</p>
<p>DOn’t you WANT GIRLS?!?!</p>
<p>Seriously the benefit of having 50-50 is better than the slight cost.</p>
<p>The average Caltech student does not rank hooking up with their classmates very highly on their list of priorities.</p>
<p>The increase in females has nothing to do with affirmative action. I’m a bit surprised that folks at CalTech are jumping to conclusions without looking at data. So here are some figures, taken from data available online at the College Board and at the American Mathematics Competitions Websites.</p>
<p>First, the number of high school girls scoring between 750 and 800 on the math portion of the SAT 1 has been increasing. In 1992, girls represented 22% of such high scorers; in 2008, they represented 34%. You can find the raw data in the online reports and graph the trend; it shows a steady increase year over year. In terms of numbers:</p>
<p>2002- 3,105 girls scored between 750-800
2000- 7,422 "
2008- 13,854</p>
<p>This is a fourfold increase in students. Note that the number of student admitted by CalTech and MIT hasn’t changed, so there are now many more qualified females competing for the same number of slots.</p>
<p>The AMC website includes archival data for students who have qualified for the AIME, and that data shows a similar sort of increase. Back in 1990, only one or 2 girls ever managed to score a 10 or higher on the AIME; in 2009 forty girls scored this high.</p>
<p>I hypothesize that females who are this talented in math are likely to be the sort of students interested in schools like CalTech; thus, a larger pool of highly qualified females.</p>
<p>Not to say that the females getting in aren’t qualified, but the data obviously say that there’s affirmative action happening if you assume the male and female applicants are of comparable quality. If you assume the females are vastly superior to the males, then I guess you could say there isn’t any?</p>
<p>Anyway, for last year (2009):
Males / 3318 applicants / 12% admitted / 37% matriculated
Females / 1095 applicants / 26% admitted / 38% matriculated</p>
<p>Data taken from [College</a> Navigator - California Institute of Technology](<a href=“College Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics”>College Navigator - California Institute of Technology)</p>
<p>It could be females are much more self-selecting than males. How many guys apply to Caltech as a super-reach with almost no chance of getting in?</p>
<p>^^^^ I would tend to agree. CalTech applicants are self selecting to begin with. I think females will be even more, especially if they know about the male/female ratio. Also, the article I had quoted talks about how CalTech used to buy lists from college board of people who had marked interest in STEM, now they even recruit females with high math scores in PSAT even if they had marked the STEM box on PSAT. A part of the increase is due to more targeted recruitment. </p>
<p>*Bischoff expanded the pool of students that Caltech paid for from those that claimed to be interested in STEM (science, technology, and math) to all students that score well on the PSAT math section, regardless of whether or not they claim to be interested in STEM. According to one Admissions staffer, this widens the net of women recruits. Furthermore, this might lead to a higher percentage of less qualified male applicants.</p>
<p>The practice of paying for non-STEM high-scorers continues today. Juniors and sophomores in high school don’t really know what they want to do, said Prado. “Some of the people that don’t check STEM are checking undecided.”*</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s a little too soon to conclude it has nothing to do with it. I wouldn’t make a strong statement either way…I think nanjasore raises a valid concern.</p>
<p>By the way, schools do what they can to admit good students, and this shouldn’t be taken to be an absolute indicator of <em>quality</em> of students. For instance, self-selection can have to do with many things. For one thing, if a group of students is much more self-selecting, they needn’t be more qualified, but they could be comparably qualified and more likely to attend if admitted, for instance. I am a great believer that there are many factors, not just “quality,” which determine the outcome in every individual case.</p>