<p>I saw a box in the CDS that indicated that “race/ethnicity” was considered, but none for gender. Maybe I missed it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so. </p>
<p>Today’s smart girls know that they’re smart (at least in my experience). </p>
<p>I think it’s more likely that their commitment to math or science is not as firm as that of the male applicants. They may intend to major in a STEM field, but they are willing to entertain the idea that at some point, they might want to consider other possibilities. </p>
<p>Pursuing other possibilities is easier to do at a comprehensive university than a tech-oriented school.</p>
<p>“I saw a box in the CDS that indicated that “race/ethnicity” was considered, but none for gender. Maybe I missed it.”</p>
<p>CDS does not have the box for gender :)</p>
<p>But more seriously, it has been widely known, with concrete evidence, that American boys/men have been underperforming from K-12 to college/grad school. In most universities, adcoms have been biased in favor of male applicants for quite a few years, at least in terms of “quantitative measures” so many CC people love. Assuming some of the gender-bias assumption is true, which I have not seen any convincing data, MIT/Caltech/xxxITs might be the exception rather than the norm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I use “SAT” as a stand-in for standardized tests in general. Based on post #1174, Cal Tech seems to share my belief that standardized test scores matter a lot. I support the use of the other <em>intellectual</em> criteria they mention to distinguish among people with very high scores. I don’t buy the argument attributed by PizzaGirl to an MIT admissions officer that SAT math scores don’t matter above the 730 level.</p>
<p>Nice try, Beliavsky. Precision is important in language as in science and you know it. You have been talking for days about the SAT in particular, and lately about MIT in particular. If your entire argument now hinges on a statement posted randomly by someone else in the last hour–after page after page of your posts that fail to offer any convincing evidence for your position–Harvard seems to have failed you.</p>
<p>You don’t have to buy what anyone else reports on SAT math scores. Here is the original blog post by the MIT admissions officer.</p>
<p>[What’s</a> the big deal about 40^2? | MIT Admissions](<a href=“http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/whats_the_big_deal_about_402]What’s”>What’s the big deal about 40^2? | MIT Admissions)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are there public universities that give preferences to males? The cases I have read about involved private universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On average, females score higher on standardized tests I think. However, this is not true when one looks at the gender distribution for students scoring at levels where they would be competitive for an ivy league school.</p>
<p>Here’s a link re recent perceptions of female faculty re possible discrimination at MIT. The snap shot is getting better since MIT self-reported discrimination about 12-13 years ago, but still a ways to go in terms of creating a gender neutral atmosphere. </p>
<p>[Female</a> professors at MIT see progress, new challenges](<a href=“http://feministing.com/2011/03/21/female-professors-at-mit-see-progress-new-challenges/]Female”>Female professors at MIT see progress, new challenges)</p>
<p>Sally Forth,</p>
<p>Do you really believe this MIT admissions officer when he says he treats the 1600 and 1400 SAT the same way. Sure, that’s why MIT has one of the highest median SATs in the country. Also, the fact that the 1600 makes no impression on him, highlights how common those scores are at MIT (as opposed to 1400s, which I bet are a rare find there for unhooked applicants).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Others, including Harvard, disagree. Here’s what longtime Harvard Dean of Admissions William Fizsimmons said about SAT scores in a 2009 NY Times interview:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Notice several things here: Harvard rates SAT/ACT tests as only the 4th-best predictor of college grades, after AP/IB exam scores, SAT Subject Test scores, and HS grades. They’ll cut you some slack in SAT/ACT test scores if other indicators of success are strong. “Small differences of 50 or 100 points or more [in SAT scores] have* no significant effect on admissions decisions*.” And standardized tests “are most useful . . . when they are extremely high or low” and “even then many other factors come into play.” In other words, low test scores may keep you out of Harvard, and extremely high test scores may help you get in, but only if all your other credentials are in order. For the vast majority of Harvard applicants, who have very strong but not “extremely high” test scores, standardized test scores are unlikely to be the deciding factor.</p>
<p>I suspect far more highly selective colleges and universities are in Harvard’s camp than in Caltech’s on this score. But the entire premise of this thread seems to be that the adcoms at places like Harvard don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re admitting “unqualified” applicants . . . as evidenced by the fact that some of those not admitted have higher SAT/ACT scores. I think that’s about the biggest bag of hooey I’ve ever encountered on CC.</p>
<p>That’s also, by the way, the essential premise for Fisher’s lawsuit against the University of Texas–she claims she knows she was more qualified because she had higher test scores. It will be a sad day in college admissions if the United States Supreme Court buys that argument and holds, as a matter of constitutional equal protection, that those with the highest standardized test scores must be admitted. I don’t think they’re crazy or radical enough to go that far, though that seems to be what some on this thread are hoping for.</p>
<p>"Are there public universities that give preferences to males? The cases I have read about involved private universities. "</p>
<p>I do not know. </p>
<p>If you look at UCLA CDS, it has ~55% female. On the other hand, UMich has slightly more male students than female. Without much confidence, I may speculate that different public universities may have different practice.</p>
<p>Beliavsky – I am from NOVA and the scuttlebut is that allegedly William & Mary applies different admissions standard to men than woman because it was trending toward a 60/40 split women to men(now more like 55/45). Last year, the Chron of Higher Education (3/17/11) cited statistics re admissions at MIT showing an acceptance rate of 26% for females and a little over 40% for males. By itself of course, this does not prove discrimination although it shoudl raise eye brows. But I also recall that W&M adminstrators have been pretty up front about the need to maintain geneder balance at the school and that this need has impacted the admission policies. </p>
<p>W&M’s policy in this regard does not bother me because I respect their view of the university’s “insttutional needs.” </p>
<p>MIT though presents a different situation because the main issue there is what happens to female students once they get to MIT (not admissions issues) and the perception that female students are stereotyped at MIT likely holds back many top female STEMs from applying there.</p>
<p>"On average, females score higher on standardized tests I think. However, this is not true when one looks at the gender distribution for students scoring at levels where they would be competitive for an ivy league school. "</p>
<p>I disagree.</p>
<p>Assuming 750+ as being competitive for Ivies, let’s look at the 2012 CB numbers.
For men, 750 means you are at 98 percentile for C and W, 96 percentile for M. For women, 750 mean 98 percentile for all three sections. Keep in mind that there were ~778K male SAT takers and ~886K female SAT takers, there are PLENTY men and women who scored high enough for Ivy/Stanford/MIT/Caltech/… admission.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not much difference between what you wrote here and in the long post I quoted about Caltech. The only differences are that Caltech has a higher line for what they consider acceptable SAT scores, and that they use only academic/intellectual factors to decide who they are going to take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, so they are basically equally in C and W, but men do somewhat better on the math. </p>
<p>Still, this would argue against a need for AA favoring men at ivies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the environment for faculty (which is what you cited) is very similar to the undergrad environment. And all of the female ‘regulars’ on the MIT board insist there is no discrimination or stereotyping of undergrad females.</p>
<p>At the low end of the SAT scale, one does see more males at the bottom of the CR and W sections than females. Not a big surprise, since many other situations have found a larger variance among males than females.</p>
<p>What may be applicable to super-selective schools taking from the top of the SAT-takers may be quite different in the middle selectivity, low selectivity, and non-selective schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder which tests you are thinking of. According to the 2011 SAT score report <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbs2011_total_group_report.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board; , the average male and female scores were </p>
<p>critical reading 500 495
math 531 500
writing 482 496</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, I didn’t really remember. Maybe it is just average GPA that is higher for females.</p>
<p><a href=“REFERRING%20TO%20CALTECH”>quote</a> It is a good summary of a rationale way to choose among applicants with high stats, and I think it is close to what most people mean they say “select the best people” in the math/science/technology area.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, the great thing is that there is both the “Caltech way” (quant focus with relatively little room for soft factors) and the “Ivy / other elite college way” with more of a holistic approach, and college applicants are free to choose to apply to whichever one best suits their overall philosophy and approach. Isn’t it great that they all don’t have to do it the same way?</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, far more people lust after the Ivy / other elite colleges than Caltech (on a per-spot basis, that is). I guess that means that fewer people find the Caltech “stew” as appealing as the Ivy / other elite college stew. Of course, that’s irrelevant for any given individual, who should apply where they find the stew most appealing. It’s kind of funny, though, that so many people simultaneously decry how the Ivy / elite stew is made and yet they want to eat it, quite badly.</p>
<p>Some of you are unbelievable. You complain about wanting transparency - and then when there are actual quotes from MIT admissions people and Harvard admissions people saying, “Stats are important, but we don’t sweat small differences and above a certain level, it’s all pretty much the same,” you don’t buy it. </p>
<p>Why is that? Is it that you don’t WANT to buy it - it’s that you WANT to believe that those perfect 2400’s impress everyone so much and are evidence of genius and being owed a spot? What more do they have to tell you? </p>
<p>MIT and Harvard told you how they do it and what they consider. Caltech tells you how they do it and what they consider, which feels appreciably different. Feel free to apply (or have your kid apply) to those places based on your own strengths and whichever you think is most appealing. Let the free market reign. If MIT and Harvard wanted to move to the Caltech style of admissions, they’d do so.</p>