IT is legal.
Title IX has admissions exclusions for private undergraduate institutions to allow them to maintain gender balance. When passed in 1972, the purpose of the exclusion was to support the entry of women into elite institutions. It now helps males.
Dartmouth College: Admitted its first female students in the fall of 1972.
Yale University: In 1972, women constituted 12.5% of the student body.
Princeton University: Admitted its first female undergraduates in 1969.
Columbia University: Did not admit women to its undergraduate college until 1983.
Harvard University: Began admitting women in 1975.
Brown University: Started admitting women in 1971.
University of Pennsylvania: Became fully coeducational in 1974.
Thatâs simply a matter of how the SC interprets it at any given time and Title IX has had many challenges and changes. Same as the AA Decision this is prime for a challenge. We will see. Of course that doesnât even get into the multiple gender issue.
Legal is only part of the issue though, there is also the perception. Up until now the general consensus has been it isnât discrimination to intentionally âbalanceâ a class by sex. Will that remain? Itâs very concerning to me that colleges overall are 60/40 Female now (something that most people donât know) and yet every policy that is based around sex is to get more females. The outlier of course is STEM fields outside of Biology and Biomedical focused fields that are majority female. Iâm not sure why we need more female Mechanical and Electrical Engineers when there are simply more males that prefer those fields, the logic doesnât apply to other majors that are female dominated.
The best solution is simply not to use sex in admissions, not sure why that is so controversial.
Unless a student is truly exceptional, I steer them away from applying early to the HYPSM colleges and instead suggest colleges a tier or two down where they can apply Early Decision.
But in families that are unwilling to apply ED, itâs very common for the student to apply to a number of EA colleges (their state flagship plus Michigan, UNC, UVA, etc.) and then take a flier on MIT or the other HYPS schools, because they can. This boosts the application numbers of these colleges, but with applicants that have a very low change of being admitted. Boys in STEM particularly favor MIT.
Hi all
I am hoping to make the National Merit Finalist (results expected Feb 3) and then submit the MIT Fun form having been deferred from EA. Does anyone know if that will make a difference ? ( I have a couple of National level wins to add, nothing too big).
Thanks for any opinions.
The quality and number of MIT applicants of both genders mean the university could choose to accept any ratio of male/female students and still have an equally exceptional incoming class. Given more than enough exceptional applicants of both genders, any decision other than to allocate acceptances equally would be sexist. MIT would likely argue that they are driving benefit for the student body by having more female representation in the class than indicated by proportion of total applicants.
At a lesser school, one might very well be able to justify a higher proportion of male STEM students based on an argument around quality of applicants. That issue needs to be addressed at the high school level, and may never be truly balanced because of gender differences leading to different major choices.
You would think that discussing MIT that math would matter. The proportion of female applicants admitted to male applicants has been more than 2 to 1 for some time now in order to get close to an equal amount of students. You can try to justify that all you want I suppose but it in the end itâs sexism and bias. MIT just wants to brag about having an equal number of male and female students for whatever reason even though twice as many applicants are male than female. There is simply no logical way that females and males are of equal merit regardless of that bias.
MIT can do what it wants I suppose until someone successfully sues them but itâs still disappointing. Females already make up about 60% of all college students nationally, not sure why they need to continue to get advantages to ensure those ratios get even higher. If thatâs what you think is best thatâs your right but just embrace that you arenât concerned about the best students getting admitted regardless of sex and you should really think about why it is any better to advantage females over males vs vice versa. Itâs sad to me and itâs wrong.
what makes you think the pool of male applicants is stronger than the pool of female applicants? The number of males applying is greater, but why do you think on the whole, the quality of the male applicants is >>> than the quality of the female applicants? Why do you think the best applicants are male?
Could it be that in general, males tend to feel more empowered to apply to MIT than females? Is it possible that the few females that do apply on the whole tend to be stronger applicants than the whole of the male applicant pool? Is it possible that female applicants donât have a thumb on the scale like you assume they do?
son, Iâve made one single comment on this thread regarding the gender divide in applications, and I have the experience of parenting a child through two degrees at MIT
The original question was brought up by someone else and was about what MIT looks for in building a class. Part of that is balance in sex. Thatâs not me thatâs MIT and I previously mentioned other schools do the same such as Pratt at Duke.
I mean you can just assume that every year for a decade or so twice as many males apply than females but the females are stronger by merit so they get half the slots but it contradicts both MIT and logic.
To me the greatest disservice isnât to the males that are denied by the way. They are highly qualified and will be successful wherever. The disservice is to the females who now will wonder (as do recruiters and others) if they were accepted based on merit or based on their sex. The reality is that all are outstanding women of exceptional talent who would also succeed wherever they go. Sex is just as foolish as melanin as a reason to admit or deny someone for a school or hire them for a job. Itâs sad that people still think it should be but itâs mainly out of a desire to do good that actually does harm and the harm is done mostly to those it was designed to help.
MIT can do as it pleases, it is a private school and the best engineering college in the world. Itâs a relevant topic to this because if you are female you have a significantly better chance of admission than a male, thatâs simply truth. That said Iâm happy to drop it.
Facepalm. FWIW, my female MIT grad and all her MIT friends had >1510 SAT, outstanding extracurriculars on state/national/international level not just school-level, and were down-to-earth, nice/warm/encouraging kids. Your asertations are just flatout WRONG. The females admitted to MIT didnât take your sonâs spot. Petey wants not only smart/driven/accomplished kids but they have to be kind/generous/collaborative ones who build each other up not tear each other down.
Awesome, thank you! Good luck to your son on 3/14!
Who cares that there are more male applicants! The proportion of applicants that are male vs. female is de minimus. Only a fraction of the qualified applicants, male or female, are going to be accepted.
Letâs disaggregate your argument.
#1- âUnqualifiedâ women are gaining admission to MIT. Thatâs total BS. The women MIT accepts are just as qualified as the men. You donât think the top 700-800 of the female applicants are as qualified as the males? If so, I disagree.
#2- MIT shouldnât strive to have a gender-balanced incoming class. Since MIT has a surplus of qualified male and female applicants, they must believe having a balanced class brings benefits to the school. Youâre on firmer ground making an argument on this point, but I donât see anything persuasive in your argument.
I am happy to drop it but you are misstating what I said. I specifically said, âThe reality is that all are outstanding women of exceptional talent who would also succeed wherever they go.â I also stated earlier this is âchoosing diamonds among diamondsâ. You are putting words in my mouth.
These are all great kids and MIT could fill itâs class several times over with students who are qualified. So the question is not who is over the bar but who is best qualified. Math wise it is not likely that females are double the quality of males every year in terms of applicants and MIT has stated they have a goal of a 50/50 class. Thus they want more females. Thatâs their choice. Iâm happy for your daughter and I have no concerns for my son if he is accepted to MIT or not, itâs a great school but he has other great options and itâs really about what you do when you are there far more than where you go.
You may also want to consider my point that the way MIT does things sets a perception that a female candidate may have gotten a boost because of her sex (or may not). I donât think thatâs good for any person and especially anyone who is as exceptionally bright and talented to even be a serious candidate at MIT. I donât think MIT should put that cloud over female students.
Letâs move on from discussing the quality of male vs female applicants, gender breakdown, or anything else not related to EA. Letâs also remember the general rules for civility on this site.
