<p>[Response</a> to critique of undergrad admissions | The California Tech](<a href=“The California Tech”>The California Tech)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PS This was in response to criticisms<br>
[University</a> admissions need to change | The California Tech](<a href=“The California Tech”>The California Tech)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does this mean? What is “MIT’s Tech” and what happened the w/o Feb 17 that was divisive / controversial?</p>
<p>FYI, Caltech admits about 600 to 700 students per year.</p>
<p>Class 2013 674/4413
Class 2014 610/4859
Class 2015 667/5225
Class 2016 TBA</p>
<p>MIT’s oldest and largest newspaper & the first newspaper published on the web</p>
<p>[The</a> Tech - MIT’s Oldest and Largest Newspaper](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/]The”>http://tech.mit.edu/)</p>
<p>See the guest column on Page 4:</p>
<p><a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V132/PDF/N4.pdf[/url]”>http://tech.mit.edu/V132/PDF/N4.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From Caltech’s most recent Common Data Set:</p>
<p>Admit Rate:</p>
<p>Males - 9%</p>
<p>Females 23%.</p>
<p>So, is Caltech saying saying that the male applicant pool is that much weaker (assuming their claim of equal admission standards)? Hmmmmm</p>
<p>deleted cross-post</p>
<p>^^ Admit rates are one indicator. One needs to look at the distribution of the applicants’ pool.</p>
<p>Total men who applied 3,685
Total women who applied 1,174</p>
<p>Total men who were admitted 338
Total women who were admitted 272</p>
<p>The real question muight have to be … why are there so fewer female applicants?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It’s not hard at all to imagine that Caltech gets a whole bunch of non-starter applications from men who are STEM-types but not Caltech-level STEM-types, and for whom Cal Poly SLO is actually a reach, while the women who apply to Caltech are comparatively self-selective and therefore significantly better qualified, on average, than the male applicants. The fact that, unlike MIT, Caltech clearly does not strive to enroll a class that is 50-50 male/female, probably discourages women with marginal credentials from applying, and probably also misleads marginal male candidates into believing they have a better chance there than they do. Also, the gender imbalance at Caltech probably also serves, net, to suppress the number of women who apply, so that the ones who DO apply include a much higher proportion of applicants whose skills and interests make Caltech a perfect fit.</p></li>
<li><p>Reading between the lines, it looks like the Caltech admissions dean is saying that they absolutely do take socio-economic and cultural factors into account in their admissions process, albeit not in any quota-like way. Clearly, they are willing to admit a student with somewhat lower stats who has demonstrated “drive”.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"So, is Caltech saying saying that the male applicant pool is that much weaker (assuming their claim of equal admission standards)? Hmmmmm "</p>
<p>They are gender balancing by admitting more girls but are still not able to reach the gap since only 35% are female at this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except Caltech claims not to be doing any such thing.</p>
<p>The closest UG school to Caltech balances its acceptance distribution in absolute numbers – but not in percentages.</p>
<p>Total men who applied 2143
Total women who applied 814</p>
<p>Total men who were admitted 328
Total women who were admitted 332</p>
<p>The final enrollment is still 112/82 men over women.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hmc.edu/files/institutionalresearch/CDS%202011-12/CDS_2011-2012_C.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hmc.edu/files/institutionalresearch/CDS%202011-12/CDS_2011-2012_C.pdf</a></p>
<p>Prevarication perhaps or is that equivocation? </p>
<p>I have heard from both MIT and Caltech folks that they get better and more focused applicants due to the self selection process among their applicants, moreso with the female applicants. It is definitely not possible to write off such a large percentage difference to the stronger applicants alone. However, I have seen the same girls get into several top schools apart from Caltech and MIT which makes it some what closer to the truth. The local MIT reception had a bunch of girls who had several other great options (multiple admissions to top 20s, prestigious programs) etc. What we have to consider is that adcoms may be bending the truth a little bit. They are not far off when they say everyone has to be qualified since MIT gets 18k apps and Caltech gets 5k apps but a very large percentage are cross admitted (I am guessing 70% but xiggi may know real numbers).</p>
<p>I will throw in this gem from Princeton rejection letter - we could have filled our 2016 class 5 to 6 times over with the quality of the applicants we have received. Essentially, whether it is Caltech, MIT, Northwestern, or Princeton, they get quality applications but how they choose the class is what makes the difference. The numbers can look skewed because they are trying do some balancing. Not even the boys want to be at the all boys Caltech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Goes back to HS curriculum. One only has to look at the gender distribution of AP courses for a one possible explanation. Compare the genders in Physics C vs. Enviro. Calc BC vs. Stats.</p>
<p>(I was just searching CB’s site for the info, but could not find it. Either I’m looking in all the wrong places (likely) or perhaps CB moved the gender-specific reports behind the registration wall.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this really a gem? The selective schools all say some version of this, and say so repeatedly. Mostly because, well, it’s true.</p>
<p>Focusing so much on stem shows why engineers are such poor communicative and why manuals are generally so pathetically written, confusing, and overly wrought.</p>
<p>Maybe if the brought in a few English majors we could figure out our electronics.</p>
<p>I was being sarcastic about the gem since I thought it was a horrible thing to say to a rejected applicant, i.e., hey there were five of you I could have chosen from.</p>
<p>If they are considering most applicants as being equal and one can displace another, what is stopping the adcoms from filling an entire class with either boys or girls? To the neutral observer who only looks at those who have shown up, it would look like Caltech admitted only 32% girls in 2011. Looking at the numbers here, we can see they admitted 272 but only 80+ showed up on campus.</p>
<p>^English majors probably wouldn’t end up writing electronics manuals anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is that horrible? Isn’t it a better message that “we were choosing from tons and tons of qualified people and the fact that we didn’t choose you doesn’t in any way imply that you weren’t qualified” - as opposed to “we only selected those who were qualified, and you didn’t make the cut”? For the life of me, I cannot possibly see what is “objectionable” about indicating that there are tons and tons of qualified applicants and not all will get in since there isn’t enough room.</p>
<p>A simple you did not make the cut is preferable. Who gives a rodent’s behind about how many classes they can fill? It is just something they pulled out of the papers copying the statement from Harvard or some other school to the newspapers. It is not something they need to put in an actual letter.</p>
<p>All I can say from a school like Princeton I would expect some original statements as opposed regurgitated cliches from 2005. I am actually hoping some Princeton adcom reads this so they write a better letter next year.</p>
<p>Well, I agree with Pizzagirl that the statement is, if not original, then at least comforting, and it would probably make me feel slightly better if I were rejected. And I bet many people would disagree with you on, “A simple you did not make the cut is preferable.”</p>
<p>You can’t write a rejection letter that will please everyone. In fact, I can’t imagine that many people find rejection letters of any kind pleasing. Thus the fact that you wouldn’t appreciate Princeton’s rejection the way it is phrased now doesn’t mean much.</p>