<p>Who cares (for purposes of this topic, anyway) what people from Caltech admissions said about their applicant pool? The Caltech applicant pool and the MIT applicant pool are not the same thing. By a cite, I mean some actual numbers from a reliable source indicating that women and URMs <em>accepted to MIT</em> have lower SATs than others accepted to MIT. Or even an <em>MIT</em> admissions officer saying that this is the case, without providing numbers. This may indeed be the case - I don’t actually know - but you’ve not provided evidence of that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MITChris did discuss the self-selection factor. The self-selection factor doesn’t necessarily mean that people’s stats were weaker. Sometimes it means that they are stronger. MITChris and others have also brought up the “strong intangibles” thing. Again, that doesn’t actually mean that those people’s stats are weaker.</p>
<p>And I’m still not seeing the causality thing that you claim in your original post. I’m not questioning your point that SAT correlates with likelihood of admission, or your point that international data partially masks this. But where’s the causality that you’re purporting?</p>