<p>I was browsing MIT's website (MIT</a> Office of the Provost, Institutional Research) when I came across some interesting data about last year's freshmen:
[quote]
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied<br>
9464
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied<br>
3932</p>
<p>Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted<br>
828
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted<br>
761
[/quote]
Please note that this is data from 2008, when MIT's acceptance rate was 11.9% according to these numbers - a substantial difference from this year's acceptance rate of 10.2%. </p>
<p>From this data, seems that acceptance rates vary wildly by gender. For females, the acceptance rate is 19.4%, while for males it is a mere 8.7%. Of course, one would have to assume a great deal of self-selection amongst the female pool, but quite a bit of self-selection occurs at a school at MIT, period. I do not wish to diminish the difficulty it takes any student to get into MIT but rather I want to point out that even with large self-selection taking place, the acceptance rate for males is well within the single digits. When you consider that the overall acceptance rate plummeted the following year, it wouldn't be far-fetched to conclude that MIT might very well be the most difficult university in the US for males to get into, would it?</p>
<p>The conclusion that males have a tougher time getting into MIT or other engineer/research-heavy institutions is little more than a corroboration of common perception, albeit the differences are more significant than I imagined. Conversely, I have heard that at the majority of elite institutions (those that aren't so heavily-based upon engineering/research), it is the female gender that is subjected to a slight disadvantage. I can imagine that this disadvantage is probably even more accentuated at quite a few LACs; I've heard Vassar's name mentioned quite a few times. Granted, I haven't found specific numbers detailing the disparity between male and female acceptance rates, but it is a speculation that I'm sure could also be confirmed. And I once again wouldn't be surprised if the difference is more substantial than I initially had believed before beginning my preliminary research.</p>
<p>Perhaps I'm making a bit too much over it, but is it possible that here on CC we are overlooking something quite important? It seems that people really like dissecting acceptance rates on racial minorities because racial affirmative action is, to this day, an extraordinarily controversial topic. But perhaps in the frenzy over racial AA, we are forgetting about the significant role gender may play in terms of admission? And perhaps those fine tiers of HYPSM, "lower Ivies," etc, really aren't representative of selectivity levels for either gender? </p>
<p>By the way - I'm not challenging the idea that certain colleges bias one gender over another. Unlike the the issue of racial diversity, I really think most universities will encounter serious problems if there isn't a gender balance...</p>