Final admissions statistics for MIT - Class of 2010:

[Byerly]

<p>Total apps: 11,369
Total admits: 1,513 (including waitlist admits)
Total matriculants: 1,009
Total EA apps: 2,965
Total original EA admits: 377
Total deferred EA admits admitted RD: 295</p>

<p>EA pool admit rate - including deferreds: 22.7%
RD pool admit rate - excluding deferreds: 10%
Overall yield rate: 66.7%</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>For others who are interested in statistics on MIT admissions, there will be a number of new statistics available when the new admissions site launches in ~mid September. These statistics include admissions rates broken down by class rank (val, top 5%, top 10%, top 20%, below 20%, no rank), by SAT I reading score, by SAT I math score, and by composite ACT score. :)</p>

[Byerly]

<p>Also of interest is the 45:55 ratio of females to males among the Class of 2010 matriculants, although the applicant group was far more heavily male.</p>

[benjones]

<p>Here we go again…</p>

[Byerly]

<p>Class of 2009 admissions stats by gender (from Common Data Set, 2005-2006)</p>

<p>Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied - 7608
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied - 2832 (27%)</p>

<p>Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted - 758
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted - 736 (49.3%)</p>

<p>Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled - 531
Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled - 465 (46.7%)</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>do they have sat score and class rank stats by gender and race?</p>

[Byerly]

<p>That would be valuable information, and it would be very bold for MIT to provide it. </p>

<p>I doubt that even MIT is bold - or candid - enought to publish such data.</p>

[56forceout]

<p>PLEASE don’t take the bait that Byerly tossed out. Just let it go.</p>

[Byerly]

<p>You’re right. Releasing such data might create a firestorm - which is why neither MIT nor any other elite wants to do it.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>But it would be so funny.</p>

[tropicalisland]

<p>The women at MIT are doing just as well or better than men from what I heard…</p>

[Byerly]

<p>Really? </p>

<p>Are they pursuing the same course of study for rhe most part, or do they tend to avoid the so-called “hard sciences”?</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>

A few years ago, an editor asked me to look into the allegation that MIT had adopted an admission policy of lower standards for women. Now, one could argue that the 20 point difference in average math SAT scores of male and female students admitted was hardly significant, especially for a group in which most scored above 700. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was. The women admitted subsequently performed, as measured by grades at MIT, as well or better than the male students. (Moreover, this is true across fields so that the women’s success cannot be attributed to differential course taking.) If male and female students taking the same exams in the same courses get comparable grades, in what sense can standards possibly be lower? Even if the women’s SAT scores were 200 points lower, if they subsequently did as well as the men would it matter that MIT used different admission criteria?

from [url=<a href=“http://www.awm-math.org/newsletter/199603/ruskai/node2.html]here[/url”>http://www.awm-math.org/newsletter/199603/ruskai/node2.html]here[/url</a>].</p>

<p>That’s all I’m sayin’.</p>

[tech_fan]

<p>The above is interesting, but is just assertion. It would be interesting to see statistics, field-by-field. Also, averages aren’t very informative. Men and women could have the same averages, but the high end could be disproportionately male.</p>

<p>Full and official statistics would be very interesting, but it’s unlikely any school (incluidng my beloved Caltech) would ever release them.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>To be honest, I’d be interested in seeing statistics on MIT GPAs by field, with or without the added dimension of gender. I recently saw a statistic on an MIT page that the median GPA at MIT is a 4.2 (=3.2 on a 4-point scale), and I would be really happy to see an actual histogram on that data, because I can’t decide whether I think GPAs would be normally distributed, or whether I think the distribution would look more like a Bactrian camel.</p>

<p>Sigh.</p>

<p>…happy b-day yesterday, Ben! :)</p>

[Byerly]

<p>Caltech HAS released some pretty interesting stats, however.</p>

<p><a href=“http://diversity.caltech.edu/dpg_reports/irvine06-04/Data.pdf[/url]”>http://diversity.caltech.edu/dpg_reports/irvine06-04/Data.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Mr_Payne]

<p>3.2 average? Apparently MIT doesn’t live up to the hype. :)</p>

[Spartan_Pho3nix]

<p>Thanks for that, Byerly. Next topic PLEASE.</p>

[Byerly]

<p>I still find this topic interesting.</p>

<p>The MIT stats are worth comparing to the Caltech stats - at least the 2008 Caltech stats referenced in the study to which I posted a link a bit earlier.</p>

<p>I still am puzzled as to why the yield rate is so much lower at Caltech than it is at MIT, even though Caltech offers so-called “merit awards” as an enducement to desirable admits, whereas MIT offers only need-based financial aid.</p>

[kcastelle]

<p>Surely you don’t mean to imply MIT admits a higher percentage of women than men! What next? Allegations that Harvard admits a higher percentage of well-prepped rich brats than hard-working middle class kids? <em>raises eyebrow and waits</em></p>