@steventocollege That makes no sense. @ucbalumnus is claiming that MIT is NOT admitting some men UCB COE is admitting (thus those men wouldn’t have the EXACT SAME financial deal at both schools.) But he is suggesting the same is not true for women.
Now, I don’t think he has any numbers to support this idea. I think he just talked himself into a corner. But if it is true that UCB is admitting men that don’t get into MIT that means their standards are lower for men.
Which is a no-no.
The average MIT admit has higher SAT’s than the average UCB admit . . It does not seem unusual to me at all that a male who did not get accepted to MIT would possibly get accepted to UCB. MIT is also much smaller than UCB. There are less female applicants to MIT than men and a higher percentage of female applicants are being admitted than male applicants , which helps in gender balance. But certainly all of the women admitted are very strong, qualified students.
Thanks for the iteration.
I almost sent out a not-so-nice post. LOL
@sevmom but I’m confused. @ucbalumnus says that MIT is putting a “thumb on” admissions. Does that mean they are or aren’t qualified?
If they are qualified, why mention it.
And if they aren’t…
And, of course, no one has explained the different SIR/yield rates. It is not due to MIT financial package differences.
So, why can’t UCB COE recruit better among women?
That is the question.
@CaliDad2020, I encourage you to share your posts on College Confidential with your daughter and report back what her educated opinions are on what you’ve shared. I’m truly interested in how she feels she has been treated.
We’ve talked about this a ton. She has experienced it first hand (I’ve posted about much of it at various spots here.) She took a JHU college engineering course and was the only girl in the class of 25. She’s done a lot of science olympiad, does research at a major research university… she knows the drill.
As far as colleges -
Michigan, has been incredible in their outreach to her. Handwritten post cards from WIE members. Personal email - all low-cost, personal student out reach. Very specific local alumni contact as well and even focused housing references - they obviously have in her file that she is a dual engineering-art applicant. Their tour was also very impressive.
Washington has been decent too, but not as good as Michigan.
As far as the UC’s, she was shocked by her UC non-acceptances. She did not expect UCB, and only held out qualified hope for UCLA, she knew it was competitive. She was told point blank by a number of professional admission folks/guidance councilors that her stats were bang on for UCSD or UCSB so those stung. She was just really pissed about Irvine and Davis. Really angry. She knows where all her friends are getting accepted and knows their stats. She actually both finally got to the WTF moment when a childhood friend of hers who goes to the top public highly gifted magnet and is perhaps the smartest girls she know also only got into UCSC. At that point they were both just like - ok, this system is flat out BS and we are no longer invested.
It took some doing but we did convince her to swallow her pride and she wrote a great UCLA appeal - and was turned down again.
USC has been the best of them all in terms of outreach. Visitation day they had female professors available to hang with, etc. Really invested in attracting strong, creative women to their program. Lots of personal touches. I was predisposed to not like USC due to its size and location, but they really impressed me.
Hope that’s interesting.
Re: #145
Michigan and Washington are probably looking more for the out-of-state tuition dollars that she would bring to them – the same thing that you see as undesirable for UCs to do. Michigan already has over 40% non-resident undergraduate enrollment, and also does not serve those from middle and lower income families much (low percentage of students on Pell grants).
Yes, That’s the piece I also don’t get with this. @CaliDad2020 , You seem angry that the UC’s accept kids from OOS and feel they are taking away seats from California kids. Yet, you had no problem having your daughter apply to OOS public schools in Michigan and Washington herself and potentially take away a seat from a qualified student in those states …
@ucbalumnus
But UCB still has a poorer yield rate for female admits then male admits. No matter where they are from. It is a gender number. Not a resident. You seem not to understand that.
They are ADMITS. They are in. But UCB can’t get them to SIR.
Dean Sastry has stated since he joined the university that he was committed to increase the gender diversity. He can’t do it. So, should he step aside? President Napolitano has also said the same thing. As has the “Dean of Diversity” who for sure should quit as they have done zilch. That job should go, it’s useless.
It amazes me that you seem so attracted to this subject yet can’t address the central issue for your Alma Mater.
Why is yield for women worse than for men? That is the question. (and your poorly thought idea that they get a better aid package from need-only MIT is NOT the answer…)
And, if they have structural issues that affect women SIR rates, why don’t they change them. That is the question.
“They are ADMITS. They are in. But UCB can’t get them to SIR.”
This question has already been answered multiple times by @ucbalumnus and other posters.
If you were not happy with the explanation, perhaps you should ask those females who chose other private schools over UCB Engineering. You can start with the kids from your daughter’s high school.
Do I find your daughter’s anger interesting? No, but it makes me sad. Am I interested in spirited conversations and varied viewpoints? Yes. Further, on your broad points, I agree with you. I was just wondering if you looked at your comments through the eyes of your daughter, you might realize your quarrelsome and petty attitude makes it hard to stand with you.
And, with that, I will be exiting the tread I started with a serenity prayer for all.
@sevmom Sorry, I have to make this quick as I suddenly got swamped with work but here’s the thing:
I have no problem with OOS and international kids going to UCs. The UCs have always enrolled OOS and international students.
But recently the rules of the game changed dramatically. You can read the report yourself or one of many news reports on the recent audit (here’s one: http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/apr/04/uc-san-diego-saw-sharpest-increase-out-state-stude/) that shows that OOS standards have been lowered.
What happened was starting in 07 or so schools were allowed to keep the $$ they got for their OOS/international students (it used to be “revenue-shared” and even today some campuses are supposed to get compensated for the extra students at other campuses, but as the audit notes the numbers for “rebenching” seem to be low for poorer campuses.)
For life-long CA taxpayers like my wife and I, who both have 35 +/- years of paying income tax at some of the US’s highest state tax rates, to see the numbers of CA students flat-line or even drop, especially at our top campuses, seems patently unfair. The rules of the game have changed mid game. My cousins kids - a half generation above my own - all went to UCs, with lesser grades.
Some of that is unavoidable demographics, but some of it also looks like gaming the system by the UCs - and that conclusion is not just mine, it is also the conclusion that the audit came to. Here’s another article on the issue:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/californians-pay-states-public-colleges-increasingly-cant-get/
In 07-08 10% of the state budget was spent on UCs and Cal States. It was higher earlier. The state even has a law that if you are in the top 9% of CA students you are guaranteed a UC campus. Since Merced opened that has meant at least Merced. But the implication was that if you were a top student (my D’s UC number for instance is top 4% or something like that) you would have a real shot at a top UC campus. That implied social contract has been eroded.
Was any kid ever guaranteed anything but Merced? No. But does that mean those of us (and our kids) who believed that if they worked hard, got good grade and played by the rules they would have a real shot at those seats should not be pissed? Of course not. It’s our state and we get to be pissed - and vote our wallets.
To give you some idea of the changes, in 07 the UCs combined had 8,000 OOS/International students. In 2015 they had 31,000 OOS/international students enrolled. Nearly a four-fold increase in 7 - 8 years.
Of course, I don’t pay income taxes in Michigan or Washington. Nor do I vote there. If they want OOS students to fund their education, that is not up to me. But it is clear that in California the landscape has been changed by the schools without including the voter/resident in the decisions. And those of us that have “invested” for years in our UC system, but had the bad luck to have children reach college age after 2010 or so, are getting less opportunity than kids that graduated just 8 or 9 years ago.
And again, that is not just my conclusion, it is the finding of many others, including the audit. Sorry, got to jump. apology for typos - no time to proof.
@palm715 she’s more pissed then me. She’s the one that worked her tail off at school and ECs. She hates the UCs now. happy with her college, but she’s on the "defund-em’ they’re carpetbaggers wagon now.
She really can’t believe that 15% of UCLA ME is female. That one has her steaming out both ears.
This profile actually indicates that standards are not lowered for OOS or International students, in comparison to instate students, at UCB. http://admissions.berkeley.edu/studentprofile
Here is an excellent article, longer, that goes over a lot of points posted here, from inate ability, to early education, to workplace atmosphere to child responsibilities.
Statistics and everything …
Also, the SAT differences between women and men make absolutely no difference in finding enough women engineers. For both sexes, engineering probably requires an SAT on the order of 550-600 minimum, so yes, that does excludes more women and men, but we are not looking for 10s of million of women engineers and there are plenty of good candidates.
It is a shame to abandon this thread to a tirade about difficultly of getting into UC engineering, which is not exactly easy for highly qualified male Cali students, or OOS students, etc. There are also excellent CSUs.
Being pissed about where you do not go to college is not really a road to lifetime happiness and success … life is not always fair, but if you get a good outcome, like a scholarship to a good engineering university … why complain ? Life will have more twists and turns, and the odds are just as good of finding a good job, good research, good graduate school, good friends, good husbands … whatever at any of the top 200 or even 500 schools in the US.
One thing to consider is that parents of women starting an engineer curriculum may prefer some of the schools listed as having higher % women, and smaller schools rather than sending their daughters to say UCB or equivalent giant state school, which typically provide little to no support to students, it’s tough love, get a B in physics or leave the program …
Sure maybe that is some sexism … but then again if your daughters have the great choice between UCB and say Mudd … why not pick what they and parents prefer.
Or maybe parents of sons are a bit more tough love …
@sevmom I dunno. The audit disagrees fwiw.
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-107.pdf
Page 39. Table 5.
I certainly have no idea.
@pickone1 Why complain? Because it’s BS, that’s why complain. Why be complacent is the question.
My D is lucky. Her mom and I are bulldogs and raised her to be one. The kids that aren’t lucky are the ones that get told - you’re a top 9%. you’re a girl into engineering. Colleges will love you… and then they get shut out of 7 of 9 UCs.
If they don’t have another plan they are screwed.
You who else isn’t luck? the URMs that are not getting into the UC engineering. they are the unluckiest of all. Cause only 7 or 8% of the UCB COE students are URM. And female URM? Unicorns.
You know who else isn’t lucky? California. Because we are selling our most valuable degrees to men from India, or Indiana and sending our top 9%ers to Merced.
The tacit approval of a system that allows UCLA to graduate 15 women for ever 100 Mechanical Engineers or Electrical Engineers is shocking to me. I can’t believe it. I can’t believe that folks listen to Sastry and Napolitano’s BS about changing gender inequity and then go “ho hum you should be happy your kid got in some place else.”
I find it amazing the subtle digs at women students around here that go unchallenged. I really am enraged - as much by the confirmation of what I had hoped no longer existed. But that’s just me. If folks get tired of my tirades, I’m sure CC has an ignore button of some sort, and I will soon be headed off to other boards as my kid heads off to school.
But don’t worry, I’ll be back in 3 years to kick it around again!
Seriously, the rate of UC enrollment of women in their most valuable engineering degrees is despicable. The low yield rate is disgusting. The lack of outrage is appalling.
But your daughter was not shut out entirely. She did get a UC acceptance. She could have applied to CSU’s. She got into great OOS colleges and will have plenty of opportunity. I hope the good citizens of Washington or Michigan are hospitable to your daughter if she ends up going to one of their schools. In your terms, they have sold one of their most valuable seats to YOU.
Not to be rude, but…did you miss the part where you hijacked the thread so thoroughly that its creator threw their hands up in exhaustion and left? It was post #150.
I think pinging women on having SAT math scores of 60 points lower is not subtle. This is an average and has no effect on any woman chosing to or being able to succeed in engineering. Low math ability students of either gender will not succeed in engineering.
You are also aware that women in ME and EE are historically below 10%. A few private small schools recruiting women students is not the answer, although I would argue that by having more highly qualified women graduating from MIT, you are actually going to change the industry, more women managers, more women PhDs, more women innovation prizes and startups … which will change the field for our daughter’s daughters. A tough love school like UCB … given the chance, maybe women want a more peaceful experience with assurance they can get the classes they want, that there will be more support, etc.
I am not sure how you think UCs should incentivize women students to attend.
All states that underfund their education system will end up with less than good results. In Cali’s case, with incredible institutions that will continue to thrive, you end up having to limit in-state students at these schools. Engineering limited enrollment in a state with high percentage of high tech jobs (and very high tax rates, which isn’t just Cali) … not good.
I am interested in how the CC->UC path affects overall women and URM graduation. In theory, this path could allow URMs to graduate but it does imply that these people are not ready to matriculate directly into UCs. I don’t think it is a path for high achievers, and allocating a lot of seats to this path may also be causing the low acceptance rates at UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCSB that should be places for the best and brightest maybe 2% or 5% … (9% is not that high a bar, to be honest).
for the record, I and other posters are women engineers, quite a few have women engineer daughters, so the idea that we are badmouthing women is bogus …
I think if you have good positive ideas on how the UCs can bring more women into engineering with the 509 and other constraints … they would be all ears. Also how to replace the $25K OOS supplement … keeps OOS women away.