collegealum314

^^Most of your info is second-hand knowledge. You were not an undergrad here. I don't know why you think there is more flexibility for a physics major than a bio major in terms of electives. I've heard they've lessened the requirements, but it used to have a ridiculous amount of required classes. I think you must be referring to the applied math major.

Also, I took organic chem and didn't think the competition particularly fierce, especially compared to course 6. I think most chem E's thought that their pure chemistry classes were significantly easier to do well in than their chem E classes.

BTW, jessiehl, I don't look down on the life sciences. I do research in the life sciences, actually. It's a noble profession.

collegealum314

"At any rate, we have gotten away from the original subject in this thread and onto one of the endless debates of whether the women are deserving or not."

Well, it seems the debate we are having now is whether the men are deserving or not.

cellardweller

Anecdotal or outdated information is certainly no better. At least I refer to published information.

LauraN

Okay then, how about this: I actually GO here. Now. (Although, Mollie and Jess are only 2 and 1 year(s) removed.)

Women are "underrepresented" in engineering at MIT. This is a FACT. The numbers support it. If you would like me to relate the case a little more strongly: women are underrepresented in mechanical engineering at MIT. This is also a FACT. I can state this because I GO to those classes. There are far more men than women. In a lab session/project team of last semester I was the only girl among 10 students.

Whether or not mechanical engineering is "harder" than biology is not a debate I'm willing to have, mostly because I'm only majoring in one of them and don't have the necessary data to compare. If anyone reading this is majoring or has majored in what is typical considered one "easy" major and one "hard" major would like to comment, go ahead. Until then, NONE of us have the authority to say that any one is harder than the other. GPAs are really only good when comparing apples to apples.

The number of students in the class rarely has anything to do with the way it is graded. Statements like "I would also argue it is signficantly easier to get a perfect GPA in the math and physics departments because of the small number of required subjects and the small numbers of students in each class" basically translate to "Look at me! I've never taken a test at MIT! Listen to me not know what I'm talking about!"

CalAlum

So, back to the original subject, which asked about the "female experience" at MIT. I'm the parent of an MIT female physics major, and here's a true story about her choice between Caltech and MIT. When she visited Caltech she had conversations with physics majors and a physics professor. She asked, "Why is the percentage of females at Caltech low?" The answer she heard was "The number of women are low because the women's SAT scores are lower in math and science." Later that day she repeated this conversation to me, stating, "I'm not going to apply here." I asked, "When you were told those things by the students and the professor, did you tell them your SAT scores?" (Hey, I asked because she had dialed toll-free, so to speak) Her answer: "What's the point? If I came to Caltech, I'd have to tape those scores to my back every day to prove myself." In contrast, when she visited MIT she also met and talked with physics majors and with two professors in the physics department. The head of undergrad physics told her this when she asked whether there were females in the department: "Come to MIT to study physics. Some of my best students are female."

Now, I only speak with my daughter once a week. My role on this board is simply as a MIT Parent-Connect volunteer, so I'm usually looking to answer questions that might interest parents. But this topic interests me, and I can tell you that my daughter feels totally at home at MIT, and she has never felt the need to "prove" herself to anyone.

collegealum314

CalAlum, I think you have grossly misinterpreted what that Caltech professor meant. I believe he was talking about the applicant pool, not the admitted pool.

CalAlum

^^ What makes you believe anyone misinterpreted that comment? She did understand the comment as relating to the applicant pool. She could have said to the professor that perhaps the scores of the applicant pool are low because some females self-select to apply elsewhere (as she did). I don't know whether the conversation went that far.

differential

I don't think GPA is necessarily the best way to measure... intelligence?

Also, the admissions office's comments on how the girls are in general better in the applicant pool falls apart when you realize that SAT scores, science fair awards, etc etc do not tell the whole story. It is hard to express the magnitude of a decade of programming experience, etc etc on an application, and many people don't feel it necessary to (programming is an example...). But it's the type of thing that can give you a HUGE advantage at MIT.

In summary, it's very very hard to compare the intelligence of two people when you are at the level of MIT students. From my experience, girls seem to be just fine at MIT. I don't think they are much better or worse than the guys. I also don't think most people at MIT really care too much about whether they are beating everyone of the other gender. Most people are too busy just trying to solve problems and do interesting things.

differential

Also, CalAlum, I believe your daughter is a freshmen? I think it would take 2-3 years of anecdotes from her to be able to accurately relay any kind of real information about MIT (other than just what freshmen year is like). Also I don't know about your daughter, but I don't tell my parents about all the stressful things here (I usually give them happy report so they feel happy and then everyone is happy and they don't bug me).

I think your daughter may have a different optimism when she is in the middle of her killer institute labs junior year. From my experience, things got way harder when I went from GIR's to courses in my major (6), and I believe this is similar for most people at MIT.

molliebatmit

This is basically my position on the matter as well.

CalAlum

^^ There have been several threads already about the level of difficulty at MIT. No disputes there.

Have to disagree however, that it would take "2-3 years of anecdotes from her to accurately relay any real information about MIT." This implies that only a junior or a senior student at MIT can convey any worthwhile information about MIT (and even that statement assumes that all information would be "accurate", "unbiased", etc.). Everyone who enrolls at MIT does so on the basis of far less information than can be provided by 2-3 years of lived experience.

LauraN

Okay, how about this- I'm a junior in mechanical engineering, and the only problems I face by being a woman are self-inflicted.

In other words, I don't think anyone has ever said anything to me suggesting that my ovaries make me an incompetent engineer in any of my classes or labs.

If I'm self conscious about my abilities as a woman, it's only because I read this ?!*(&#!@ board and have to read comments posted to my blog and delivered to my inbox from bitter rejectees about how the women at MIT are underqualified.

collegealum314

^^For the record, the only reason I responded to this thread was that people were trying to assert that the males were, in fact, underqualified at MIT. I think whatever AA that may or may not exist for women is slight in MIT admissions (though again, I have not yet heard an adcomm say that none exists at all.) I am sure that self-selection is a huge issue in obscuring data from admit percentage.

I went to a high school that sends a lot of people to MIT, and it looked to me that women and men were held to the same standard in admissions. And I never noticed any difference at MIT, either. Despite going to a math and science high school, even there I noticed a lot of self-selection in applications to MIT. It seemed the girls didn't even bother applying to MIT unless they had graduated in the top 10, whereas a lot of guys applied with no chance to get in.

And btw, I also think CalAlum's portrayal of Caltech is unfair. Even if the profs have a skewed view of female students in the country, the ones that do get in obviously have the stats and everyone knows it. So I don't understand why any female at Caltech would feel the need to prove that they deserve to be there.

jessiehl

Heh. I did, and I took both 5.12 (man, was that a mistake) and a bunch of course 6 classes. I didn't think people were competitive in course 6 at all, really. This could just be a reflection of changes in the respective majors between when you attended (not actually sure when that was) and when I did. There are, based on both of our comments, a lot fewer course 6 people now (60% when you went vs 16% now), which might make it less competitive, and my impression is that there are more premeds, which probably makes 5.12 more competitive, since it's kind of a premed weeder. When *I* was an undergrad - I cannot speak for any other era - people were much more competitive in 5.12 and my course 7 and 9 classes than they were in my course 6, 17, and 18 classes.

One thing that the prefrosh should probably get from this thread, if they get nothing else, is that these things change over time, and also that different people, even in the same major, will have different experiences (especially in a flexible major, where what classes you choose can have a big impact on your impression of the major).

Also, that for most women the experience at MIT is pretty good.

LauraN

Or as Mollie likes to say, the female experience at MIT is the same as the male experience, except you use different public restrooms.