<p>I'll be at a science olympiad competition during CPW, or else I would participate in the dunking-in-the-Charles-of-anyone-who-doubts-that-girls-are-capable :)</p>
<p>Thank goodness there are people who agree with me.</p>
<p>Cellardweller: you rock. :)</p>
<p>w000t on the dunking! :P</p>
<p>"Game, Set, and Match to cellardwellar</p>
<p>Thank you for the clarity and precision of your response."</p>
<p>Well, cellardwellar has articulated exactly what Harvard's admissions policy is. I basically oppose the Harvardization of MIT. </p>
<p>"The life sciences are now the hottest areas for future growth. Shouldn't MIT participate in training the next generation of biologists, biochemists or physicians? What about economists, intellectual property policy experts, entrepreneurs, bankers, consultants or venture capitalists? The world is increasingly technical and these fields could certainly benefit from increased scientific awareness as scientific litteracy hits new lows."</p>
<p>I agree with all of the above. However, MIT has always turned out people that end up in these fields and are extremely successful--even before the changes in admissions policy. What I disagree with is the notion that an 18-year-old needs to have already differentiated. Most of my friends that are highly successful entrepeneurs in the tech world were just outstanding students and accomplished in academic competitions as high schoolers. They weren't setting up lemonade stands or whatever. Now if they can be an outstanding student plus run their own business, then great. But raw academic ability and work ethic should be a much, much higher priority than early signs that they will become a banker/entrepeneur in my opinion.</p>
<p>@stupidkid:</p>
<p>My stats aren't nearly as good as your friend's, but from what I see, if you're a white/asian male (as I am), getting in is just tough. Based on the acceptees/rejectees from my school, though, there is obviously a gender/race disparity.
I frankly don't see how there's an argument there. Affirmative action lives!
Though, I believe it should just be treated as an incentive for non-AAs to work harder :D</p>
<p>I agree with collegealum314. </p>
<p>I don't have a problem with people going on to many different careers. But I think that while at MIT, every student should have a very high level of competency in mathematics and science. If you see the CV's of many professors of BME at Duke, you will see that many of them come from backgrounds of chemical eng, electrical engineering, computer science, etc. Most people at MIT can probably teach themselves most of what they need to know regardless of what field they go into. MIT is suppose to teach students how to think faster, smarter and more insightfully than others under high pressure and demand, a skill that should transfer to any field.</p>
<p>My admitted S does have amazing math/science ability, stats, and honors. But I'm quite certain that the admitted females and URMs also have amazing ability. And I'm quite certain that he would not choose MIT if it were not for the female population and other diversity now there. They will put their great minds together and that is how new ideas will be formed. MIT is not going downhill; rather, they are locating talent that went untapped in the past.</p>
<p>yeah, like how many people dont want to go to caltech cuz itsl ike 99.999 % guys</p>
<p>
Absolutely not, ever.</p>
<p>You'll notice the current students are not the ones saying these things. Once you get to MIT, nothing matters except whether you're willing to help finish this week's problem set. (Also, after perhaps the first day of orientation, nobody will ever mention SAT scores again.)</p>
<p>I was asked in graduate school interviews if I had ever experienced discrimination at MIT because of my gender. I was sort of taken aback -- no, never -- it wasn't even something I'd thought about or had a prepared answer for. I ended up stammering that the disposable lab coats in my lab's mouse room buttoned the guy way, and that the microscope room chairs were all too short, and that was it. :)</p>
<p>
I am curious StupidKid, Your own achievements were lesser than the "friend" you are vehmently talking about, yet you got into MIT RD....?</p>
<p>he, he, did you wrongly claim to be a female on your app to give you that advantage?
Of course, how else would I have gotten in?</p>
<p>It's pretty obvious that more males would apply to an "Institutes of Technology," yet MIT keeps the male to female ratio approximately equal. So is it because that the female applicant pool is just so much stronger than the male's?</p>
<p>
I bet he is disappointed and I'm rather surprised, but comparing his stats to some of those who got accepted....I guess MIT thought that he's lacking some "intangibles"</p>
<p>ugh. how about this. Yes it is unfair that URMs and girls are getting in over boys and asians. But honestly, if those people are qualified, there are similar schools, such as Caltech, and ivies, that would accept them. MIT doesn't have room for EVERYONE, and it values diversity more than having a class full of asian/white male math and science geniuses (like caltech). Doesn't mean you're less qualifeid, and perhaps you are more qualified or even MUCH more qualified than the girls and URMs that got in. Yes, you are more qualified than some girls and URMs, but NO, you are not more qualified than ALL girls and URMs, and without girls and URMs, life would be pretty boring :)</p>
<p>
Haha, yes I'd agree, very boring indeed :P</p>
<p>In response to Collegealum, I just don't see any significant change in admissions policy. Academic achievement still remains by far the largest factor in admissions to MIT as the most recent statistics show and as I stated earlier I don't see any evidence of watering down of the academic standards, just the contrary: higher test results, higher graduation rates, greater faculty satisfaction with the student body. By all metrics, current students are stronger academically than they were ten years ago: MIT is still winning more Putnams than any other school. URMs matriculate and graduate in larger numbers and faster than at any other technical institute by a mile. While still underrepresented in some departments, women perform at an equal level or better than men at the institute, refuting any evidence of preference in admission. MIT is admitting an ever shrinking number of students from a larger and larger pool as admission rates drop and yields are rising. Satisfaction among students and faculty is at an all time high. </p>
<p>Where we disagree is that Collegealum would be very happy to have an admissions policy where high school achievements in math and science would be the only factors considered for admission. MIT has never had such a policy and I think it would a bad choice to introduce it. </p>
<p>If Harvardization means enrolling students with outstanding academic achievements and the greatest potential to contribute to society, I am all for it. It is much better in my book than Caltechization where academic merit is so narrowly defined so as to deter many of the highest achievers from applying in the first place. MIT's emphasis is more on science and technology as opposed to the liberal arts at Harvard, otherwise the student bodies are not radically different. Both will seek out the standout candidates in a pool of extremely qualified applicants. A number of students were admitted to both schools and would have done well at either school. Many students will end up following similar paths in professional or grad school and beyond. Nearly all of them are highly driven. As I get to meet many of my D's classmates, I can only conclude that the level of maturity, sense of purpose and determination of most of the students at MIT today is far greater than it was when I was a student. With the resources available today, accelerating globalization and the rate at which new information is assimilated, they can achieve things that were simply not possible even ten years ago.</p>
<p>There has never been a better time to be an MIT student than at present!</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's pretty obvious that more males would apply to an "Institutes of Technology," yet MIT keeps the male to female ratio approximately equal. So is it because that the female applicant pool is just so much stronger than the male's?
[/quote]
That would be the position of the admissions officers, yes.</p>
<p>^Narcissa: Ok, just to be fair to Caltech, they aren't ALL white/asian male math/science geniuses. I am female and got in there. I am also prepared to be murdered for making this comment on the MIT board XP</p>
<p>
So most don't apply to Caltech?</p>
<p>Actually, Caltech does admit females at a higher rate than males -- if I recall correctly, the female acceptance rate at Caltech is ~1.5x the male acceptance rate, in the total absence of gender-based affirmative action.</p>
<p>
This is an interesting sentiment, because I think it's really ingrained in MIT students to oppose Harvardization, and I agree with you that Harvardization is something to be opposed. (And apparently I even go to Harvard now.) </p>
<p>But I feel that the admissions office is the major administrative force opposed to Harvardization. They're interested in admitting the classic MIT types -- the kids who blow things up in the basement and who really care passionately about science and engineering -- rather than the kids who do everything right just to get a handful of acceptance letters. I really dislike the MIT administration on most issues, but everything I've seen has convinced me that the admissions office has its head on straight, and that they really have the best interests of the MIT community at heart.</p>
<p>Most other administrators at MIT would like to see students just be normal and behave, but the admissions office really revels in admitting people who will excel academically at the same time that they further MIT's unique cultural aspects. I guess I really appreciate that.</p>
<p>From a random sampling of my D's sorority, most of the female students admitted to MIT did not apply to Caltech. Harvard and Stanford, much more likely. The low rate of female students at Caltech acts as a deterrent and depresses the female applicant pool as well as the yield.</p>
<p>more smart/qualified girls apply to caltech. there are less "hell why not i'll apply" applicants.</p>
<p>Wow,
Im In.
Isnt this a big surprise.</p>