Astonished by Common Data Set

Colleges & Universities Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>I just looked at the admissions statistics on MIT’s Common Data Set and I was floored by one particular item. 11,615 boys appplied and 878 were admitted (7.6% admit rate). However, only 5,017 girls applied but 798 were admitted (15.7% admit rate)!</p>

<p>They only publish the test scores and GPA statistics in aggregate, but I have to believe that the numbers for boys are significantly higher than for the girls. </p>

<p>Is there some reason that girls’ admit rate is more than twice that for boys?</p>

2

<p>I believe MIT does this because it wants to be able to offer it’s undergraduates the experience of living and learning in an environment that is as close to equal numbers of women and men as possible.</p>

<p>Given that far more male high-school seniors are interested in attending MIT than female high-school seniors, that is necessarily going to mean that the admit rate for females is going to be higher than the admit rate for males.</p>

<p>You may think that it is wrong of MIT to value highly having a mixed-sex undergraduate body - and that is your right - but not everyone agrees with you about that. Here are some factors to consider:</p>

<p>1) Most students value being at a place with a balanced sex ratio. For men at MIT, it makes it easier to have sexual and romantic relationships, and for women, it mitigates the loneliness and feeling of being a freak one might get at a campus with an unbalanced sex ratio. (Where ‘the odds might be good, but the goods are odd’, for example.)</p>

<p>2) Many people believe that it’s important for our society’s future to encourage more women to see themselves as potentially successful science and engineering students. Encouraging more women to apply to MIT by making the test score/GPA standards lower might be one way to do that. </p>

<p>3) Many people believe that girls in high school do not have enough role models of successful women scientists and engineers. Perhaps prioritizing sex-ratio equality at top-ranking schools will help address that imbalance for future cohorts.</p>

<p>I’m sure others can come up with more factors that are weighed by institutions as they decide how aggressively to mess around with the ‘natural’ sex ratio that they attract.</p>

<p>Consider the inverse: it’s an accepted fact that at many Liberal Arts Colleges men are admitted with lower test scores/GPA’s than women, in an attempt to keep the sex ratio close to 50/50. </p>

<p>There are schools that choose not to mess with the sex ratio and let the chips fall where they may. Or not to mess with it as much. There is no one right answer - if it’s a deal breaker for you, then luckily you can apply somewhere with a different philosophy. </p>

<p>I don’t mean that to sound snarky - I greatly admire the breadth of options that the American higher education system offers. You don’t get to have that kind of breadth without ending up having schools that are not right for everyone.</p>

3

<p>As you say, since statistics are not broken out by sex, you can only speculate. Consider that the more a school deviates from a 50/50 split, the less desireable the school becomes for the majority of applicants, both men and women. Since women as a whole are better students than men, this probably more than makes up for possibly being slightly less qualified statistically and why they do fine at MIT. Outside the most elite colleges, it’s the men who get the admissions advantage. I believe the admissions dean at Kenyon pointed this out explicitly in a NYT op-ed.</p>

<p>Consider what might happen if admissions were made without regard to sex. The admitted student body might go to a 67/33 ratio the first year. In the next year or two it might go to 75/25. Applications from men and women go down but more so for women who wouldn’t want to feel isolated. The quality of the applicant pool would go down and MIT’s status as the top engineering school would be lost to Stanford, Caltech, Cal Berkely, Georgia Tech, etc. Caltech can be lopsided because they are so small they can still get an elite class. A much larger school can’t.</p>

<p>It’s not perfectly fair for the men who might look better on an app but get bumped. From MIT’s perspective, the super bright and passionate applicants who really enhance the school’s reputation still get admitted. Overall, it’s the best compromise a top tech school can make in my view.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>Is there any reason for this? This is anecdotal of course, but many guys I knew who applied to MIT assumed that MIT would overlook their low GPAs and minimal involvement and admit them based on SAT scores. </p>

<p>Also, Cal Tech has an even greater disparity between male and female admissions rates (9% vs. 23%). And at the end of the day, it’s unlikely that your results would have changed much if you were girl rather than a guy.</p>

5

<p>Sorry about using stereotypes but when you talk about groups you have to rely on group statistics and does anyone doubt that women do better than men in college as a group? MIT being better than Caltech in engineering is of course just one person’s opinion. Of course a legitimate argument can be made for Caltech being better. It’s a unique and wonderful school and I’m sure many choose it over MIT.</p>

6

<p>Here are attributes of three girls I know who got in 2012.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>5570/5600 for SAT + 4 subject tests and a 35 on ACT. AP National Scholar (8 or more APs with 4 or above in all tests) at the time of application, national merit semi finalist, summer research at a national lab etc. - admitted to 3 other top 10 schools</p></li>
<li><p>36 on ACT, predicted valedictorian at the time of application from a well known school, national merit semi-finalist, AP National Scholar, two summers of researh, admitted to Harvard.</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t know the numbers but was good enough to get into Brown PLME.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>None of them are going… However, a lot of others are going who are also extremely qualified and had several top school admissions to choose from.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>The discrepancy is greater at Caltech, which officially states that it does not practice gender-based affirmative action. According to Caltech’s 2010-11 Common Data Set, the school admitted 9% of male applicants and 23% of female applicants (source:
finance.caltech.edu/documents/9-cds2011<em>final</em>4<em>28</em>11.pdf)</p>

<p>This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Representatives from both Caltech and MIT have stated in previous years that in the overall pool of applicants, the female portion of the pool is academically stronger. I have no data to back this up, but my own daughter’s experience supports this conclusion. In the spring of 2007, she was the only student admitted from her high school to MIT. In all fairness, I’d say her fellow male applicants were disappointed, but they all understood this admissions decision. </p>

<p>The only people I’ve encountered who have questioned her admission over other male applicants are men and women from my own generation. Somehow we just can’t seem to get it through our heads that women can excel at math and science. Just this year, on learning my daughter is now a physics graduate student at Harvard, a woman colleague remarked, “Wow – well, I guess being female helped her get in.” I tried to point out that she had graduated as a top student at MIT and had received a major award from the physics department there – and I hope that information made a difference in this woman’s mind. But who knows?</p>

<p>Maybe the younger generation will finally get it.</p>

8

<p>Sorry if i wasn’t clear. The Caltech vs MIT debate was completely beside the point I was trying to make and I wish I hadn’t brought it up. Both are great schools but different in fundamental ways. Women as a group performing better in college than men is I think a relevant statistic. If the imbalance becomes more extreme, that may be something to be concerned about.</p>

<p>Since I support affirmative action in college admissions, I suppose I support considering what groups people belong to in that limited extent. As I expressed in my first post, it is beyond doubt that at least one school (Kenyon) favors men over women in admissions and many people besides me think that favoritism happens at many (most?) selective schools. The top 5 or 10 most selective colleges might be able to achieve balance without favoritism. I speculated that the very top tech oriented schools may favor women in admissions. If MIT doesn’t need to favor women to get to 45%, then that’s great. I readily concede that that may be the case. If they do need to slightly favor some borderline women over some borderline men to get to 45% then I think that’s a good policy for reasons stated before. If this speculation is insulting or misinformed, I apologize.</p>

9

<p>Did some posts disappear or am I responding imaginary posts. Don’t answer that!</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>One reason is that MIT isn’t trying to operate a strict meritocracy. MIT is trying to create a vibrant, exciting and inviting educational community. So after ensuring that they’re choosing among academically qualified candidates, they base their final admissions decisions on a lot of factors other than GPAs and SATs.</p>

11

<p>this OP makes me sad</p>

12

<p>thanks though to some others for making me happier by pointing out some of the really important things, such as </p>

<p>1) why would you assume “that the numbers for boys are significantly higher than for the girls.”</p>

<p>2) as sikorsky said, we pick our admits from among qualified academic applicants on a basis other than SAT scores (although i would argue, contra sikorsky, that this is not incompatible with a meritocracy) </p>

<p>3) admit rates are a literally meaningless metric</p>

13

<p>argh it’s this again
Thank you, Chris.
I’d also like to point out that girls who apply to MIT are a more self-selecting group. In many places, it’s not “cool” or acceptable for a girl to apply to a school like MIT, so several would-be female applicants are rooted out this way. Those that do end up applying usually are those more passionate about their application and about the school. </p>

<p>“They only publish the test scores and GPA statistics in aggregate, but I have to believe that the numbers for boys are significantly higher than for the girls.”</p>

<p>Why do you assume this? It’s nothing but pure speculation. Don’t judge without anything to back you up.</p>

<p>Rant over. But questions like this (and people who suggest “you only got in because you’re black/white/blue/female/male/blonde/dyslexic/not dyslexic/single limbed/bald” rile me up.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>Fair point, Chris. If I could still edit my earlier post, I would amend it to say that MIT’s concept of merit is broader than just grade-point averages and standardized-test scores. Better?</p>

15

<p>One more data point for an MIT admit girl.</p>

<p>Single sitting SAT - 2400, 800s on all SAT2s, a 4.0 unweighted GPA, and Intel Semifinalist.</p>

16

<p>You probably only got a 2400 because you’re a girl. ;)</p>

17

<p>lidusha - she is a friend’s daughter but I will tell her you said so!</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>IIRC, girls have better GPAs at the end of year one.</p>

19

<p>I apologize for assuming that the qualifications of female applicants is less based on broad numbers and my admitted speculation.</p>

<p>Many of you have made compelling arguments that have answered my innocent query effectively. Thank you for enlightening me.</p>

20

<p>rmldad - my impression is that as a percentage, more women may get admitted to MIT and Caltech but those who apply as well as those who are admitted show the kind of passion for research and technology that are in no way inferior to the men applying. They just have a better shot since fewer women apply and have gone onto do amazing things after MIT or Caltech.</p>

<p>You should see some of the resumes of the women that have been rejected. I don’t believe they are any less qualified either but MIT has to draw a line somewhere.</p>