sunmachine

I disagree that the male applicant pool necessarily would have to be stronger in order for debunk the claim that female applicants are being rejected in favor of lesser qualified males. All that would have to happen would be for the "weakest" male admit to be as strong as the "weakest" female admit. This seems quite possible when you consider that most of these schools admit more females than males in terms of raw numbers, even if the admit rate is higher for males (based, of course, on the fact that more females apply than males). Swarthmore, for example, admitted 461 males in 2008 and 502 females. Was the 503rd female applicant (who was not admitted) more qualified that the 461st male (who was admitted)? Perhaps she was, but I don't see how we can draw this conclusion simply because the admit rate at Swat was 5.1% higher for men than for women. We'd have to see the data on stats. To be clear, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the data turned out to support your view, but I don't think your conclusion follows from any information that has been presented thus far.

Keilexandra

^ I think your logic is sound, but I can't quite follow it, so help me out here. Swarthmore obviously has a smaller pool of male applicants than female applicants. Why would the two pools, though of differing sizes, have a different distribution of qualifications? I.e. the most qualified male applicant is probably equal to the most qualified female applicant, same for least-qualified. Barring any strange anomalies such as for military academies, which attract fewer females for a reason other than statistics--since Swarthmore's smaller applicant pool is a result of the lower total number of qualified males in the U.S., not because Swarthmore is inherently less attractive to males--I would think that both applicant pools have a similar parabolic distribution of talent. (There's a statistical term for the nice symmetrical parabola, but I can't remember it ATM.) Thus, if the "standard" for admission was the same for both genders, logically X% of each pool should be admitted, and X should be the same for both.

lockn

There more males getting 700+ scores on the SAT, but females get better grades. I think any difference in the quality of applicants would vary from school to school, and depend on how each school weights these factors.

interesteddad

As a practical matter, it is what it is. I think it is very important for female applicant to undersand that they face a tougher challenge than the overall acceptance rate may suggest. Build a college list accordingly.

For my white female daughter, I always felt that 75th percentile states was the threshold for a match school.

Guys can use this data to their advantage as well. At many schools, a guy might be able to go for a reach with better odds of the gamble paying off.

sunmachine

First of all, without data, I don't think we can assume anything about the overall applicant pools of male and female applicants for Swarthmore or any other school. Too many things could be going on.

More importantly, I don't think the overall make up of the respective male and female applicant pools is particularly important to the matter that I think most concerns us - namely whether females are being rejected in favor of less qualified males. If Swarthmore, for example, claims to have a gender-neutral standard for admission (I'm not saying Swat ever made such a claim), what I want to know is whether everyone who met that standard was admitted, and everyone who didn't was not. All I'm saying is that it is possible that Swarthmore does have such a standard, and found that it was met by 461 males and 502 females. The rest of the applicant pool - that is, the ones who did not make the cut - is simply not relevant, unless, of course, the 503rd female was in fact more qualified than the 461st male, which to me would debunk the claim that the standard is the same for both genders.

And yes, I realize that with "holistic" admissions, the idea of such a "standard" probably exists only in theory, and the practical advice just given by interestedad is the way to go!

Even so, I'd love to see the data!

interesteddad

The whole concept of "rejecting" applicants at places like Swarthmore is misguided. The applicant pools are so strong that it's really not a case of "missing the cut". Instead, a better conceptual model is to think in terms of the applicants who have presented something that makes them stand out. Think of an affirmative decision to accept someone rather than a decision to reject someone else.

Then, break the applicant pool down into different stack of applicants. To some degree guys are competing to stand out among the guy applicants. African Americans to stand out in the pile of African American applicants and so on and so forth.

There is little doubt in my mind that it is easier to stand out in the guy pile than the girl pile. It's just a numbers thing. Part of it is that the gender balance is so skewed female in minority groups (for many reasons), This means that colleges like Swarthmore have go male heavy among white applicants to get near 50/50.

Keilexandra

^ I think the overall make-up of male/female applicant pools is vital to determining whether there are different "standards." Since this theoretical standard doesn't actually exist, even within admissions, we can only infer it by examining how "deep" into each pool the admitted students reach. I am making the somewhat-of-a-leap assumption that Swarthmore's m/f applicant pools don't differ significantly in statistical distribution; I've seen no data that suggests otherwise. Since there is no explicit cutoff point, there is no possible way to find out whether "the 503rd female was in fact more qualified than the 461st male," so one must approach the issue from a different angle.

ghostbuster

Therefore, if the male applicant pool is NOT stronger than the female applicant pool, and a higher percentage of the male applicant pool is admitted, it follows that the admitted male applicants will be overall weaker than the admitted female applicants. = Keil.

I dont want to get too granular in the analysis and I havent examined the specific data. But yes, in general, I believe that is the case. We can ascribe all sorts of granular statistics and methodologies in admissions, but the fact of the matter is, its often much less a science and much more an art...a quirky art at that. Colleges will make all sorts of excuses as to why they admit or deny certain applicants. For everyone they say "you didnt have a 1450 SAT" you can find 10 students in the class who got a 1350.

I dont know if male applicants have lower stats or not. I just know that the pool of male applicants is shrinking overall and the pool of female applicants has exploded to new highs, making it harder for women to get in, unless they are URM's. (black or hispanic). Again, some schools are strict about seeking a 50/50 parity in gender. Some are willing to accept a higher ratio.

The dropout rate for males is also much higher, for some reason.

ghostbuster

As a practical matter, it is what it is. I think it is very important for female applicant to undersand that they face a tougher challenge than the overall acceptance rate may suggest. Build a college list accordingly.= interested dad.

Precisely my point, Dad. Yep.

Corbett

Sorry to sound negative, but if you are pursuing post-secondary education, you should be able to calculate the percentage by which one number is larger or smaller than another number. You don't need a background in statistics; the mathematics of percentages only involve simple arithmetic, and are normally taught at the junior high school level.

Some years ago, LACs were very concerned about deteriorating writing skills. Many schools established some form of writing requirement, and set up "Writing Centers". Now there is growing concern about "quantitative literacy", and schools are setting up "Quantitative Reasoning Centers".

At Smith, for example, there has been serious debate about the possible need for a quantitative reasoning requirement, despite the school's traditional open curriculum. Some Smith alumnae even report that:Turns out that this is true.

sunmachine

Keil, as you say, your assumption on m/f applicant distribution is somewhat a "leap", and I wouldn't base a provocative conclusion on it without some affirmative evidence. You might disagree. I know that at my kids' high school, the m/f applicant distribution is not the same as it concerns GPA, class rank, and SAT scores. I don't know about any national trends, and I especially don't know what it would be at a highly selective place like Swarthmore. Again, the data, if we knew it, might prove you right, but at this point I don't know. Let's just say I choose to have a healthy respect for what I don't know!

I think interestedad probably gave a good description of how admissions work in the real world, and I agree that due to numbers it is probably more difficult for female applicants to "stand out" from the "girl pile." And I guess that the fact that 502 girls and only 461 boys were admitted confirms that there were more "stand out" girl apps than boys in the overall pool. But I think it would take another big "leap" to conclude that, as a group, the 502 girls selected were stronger than the 461 boys, or that there were unselected girls who were stronger than the accepted boys. Only a direct comparison of the applications could tell me that.

I-dad, I don't follow what you say about "the gender balance is so scewed female in minority groups." Do you mean there are more female URM applicants than male URM?

Keilexandra

Corbett - It's not the math that sticks me, but the logic. Ironically I do extremely well in math courses; but I'm much better at algebraically simplifying calculus equations than doing SAT I math problems. Practical math is not my strong suit; I can do the math, but not necessarily WHAT math to do. In this particular case, I believe I memorized the formula in studying for the SATs but have partially forgotten it and thus have no confidence in being correct. To find the percentage by which X is greater/lesser than Y, is it X/Y or Y/X? Or something else?

Contrary to your beliefs, I don't think my poor math reasoning skills make me unfit for post-secondary education. For everyday life? Oh yes. [/English major]

sunmachine - My leap is based partially on the anecdotal evidence of a Kenyon admissions dean apologizing to all of the girls she's rejected over the years, with the implication that they would otherwise have been accepted under a gender-neutral standard.

ghostbuster

My D1 scored a low 600's on the SAT math section. Its not her strength. CR and Writing? 760. I believe in the left brain and right brain differences. Its patently RIDICULOUS schools expect kids to be perfect in both sections and strong on both. She did just fine in math classes and college core requirements....and once done, said, "never again....I'm not an engineer or computer geek...."

Focus on what you are good at. Do your best in everything else and move on.

Kenyon is particularly strong in English, by the way. But yes, they reject women all the time because of the 'sheer number of applications' .

Don't try to overanalyze admissions. You can't even rationalize most of what they do. There are stories every year at every school...."how did YOU get in?" "I can't believe they waitlisted YOU!" Its a capricious and sometimes arbitrary and very quirky process. They aren't even consistent on the days they review applications. If you get reviewed on Monday you might get in, but on Tuesday maybe not. Forgettaboutit!

You can't "game" the system. Make your applications, reach-match-safety and cross your fingers. Make sure ALL your applications are to schools where you can be happy and thrive. Embrace your match and safety schools. If a reach takes you, congrats. Otherwise, move on.

You are the person you are inside irrespective of where you go to college. Its an important step in your life. But once you move in and get started, all this will seem so silly and irrelevant. (it is!) Unless of course, you obsess about it while you are at some school and then live this transferitis nightmare making everyone else miserable too.

Kids who are at school with my D1 went through this...some had transferitis and 90% stayed. Those that stayed are happy and thriving (Dean's List!).

Whether its Scripps, UDel, Kenyon, Swarthmore, Northwestern....name a school...you are still the same person and will be fine. Enjoy life. Be grateful for what you have and who accepts you. And don't hang out with status and prestige obsessed people. In my view, they are superficial and a real downer. Not "real friends."

Kei-o-lei

Corbett, now that you've flamed Keil for not doing the analysis that you suggested, should we interpret your lack of provision of that same analysis as evidence that you need remedial stats work? Or is it just that you'd rather flame someone than provide useful information?

Kei

P.S. Not that there's anything wrong with that :-)

sunmachine

Keil, I think you're gonna stand out regardless of which pile they put your application in; years from now, we can all say, "I knew her when...."