<p>Im wondering if it is similar for columbia engineering ... if anyone knows the stats i would really appreciate if u can post it.<br>
and finally do u think its fair that the acceptance rates are so much higher for girls than for guys. I personally dont and i dont think im being sexist in anyway. Any thought will be appreciated...</p>
<p>damn u for tricking me into clicking on this thread! </p>
<p>but to answer your questions....</p>
<p>yes, the acceptance rate for girls is higher than for guys at SEAS as it is at most other engineering schools. I don't have actual stats for you but it is pretty much the rule across the board and columbia is no exception. </p>
<p>there are girls at columbia engineering who, had they been guys, would not have gotten in....i knew some myself. but the argument for lowering the bar is similar to the diversity argument made for affirmative action but, in my opinion, it is much more justifiable in this case. Would you really want to be at a school that was 90% male? 95% male? When you get out in the real world...or even if you go on to non-engineering grad school....you will have to work with women whether they are your colleagues or teammates etc. If the vast majority of students in your classes and in your groups are guys then you won't get that experience.</p>
<p>Yeah, seriously, I thought this post was about real sex! :( Oh well. </p>
<p>You know, it also could just be that more guys than girls apply to SEAS. Not that I'm trying to refute Shraf's argument. </p>
<p>I don't think it's unfair, because we need more women in the sciences (insert lawrence summers joke here). As long as they don't lower the bar significantly and continue this policy, if it exists, forever, I think it's fine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you get out in the real world...or even if you go on to non-engineering grad school....you will have to work with women whether they are your colleagues or teammates etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ergo, you'll have to deal with sexual tension, cattiness, etc.</p>
<p>anyways as a male applicant to seas i don't find the female advantage all that enticing right now, but if i'm ever admitted i'm sure i won't mind :]</p>
<p>if you check the official ED and RD threads you can compare stats for male and females, but for most of the threads I can't really find a huge gap in qualifications between male and female seas applicants.</p>
<p>it's not really that much of an advantage. women applying to engineering school are a self-selecting pool, a higher acceptance rate indicates more that some women simply take themselves out of the running by not applying, as opposed to it indicating that there is a bias by admissions officers.</p>
<p>it IS an advantage. it's not like the men are somehow not self-selective as well; it's clear that having twice the acceptance rate to the same school will translate into an easier time getting in.</p>
<p>i believe caltech practices no sexual discrimination, and their rate is ~35% women.</p>
<p>Hmm, what about those Asian-American, female engineers, from schools such as Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, who apply to Columbia SEAS en masse? Do they have enjoy the same elevated chance of admission?</p>
<p>I'm under the impression that the techy-female card is no longer as effective as it once had been.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i believe caltech practices no sexual discrimination, and their rate is ~35% women.
[/quote]
caltech does give a boost to girls, actually. i saw some statistics from a couple years back--i think the admit rate for males was around 17% and females around 21%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
caltech does give a boost to girls, actually. i saw some statistics from a couple years back--i think the admit rate for males was around 17% and females around 21%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily - admit rates are a poor basis for making such an assertion. One could just as easily argue that the applicant body of females is more self-selective. I'd be more ready to take Caltech at its word.</p>