<p>
</p>
<p>What a terrible inclusion-exclusion problem… I wonder how many HYPSM across the broad cross-admits there are.</p>
<p>There was one on CC last year. He got into HYPSMC, and went to MIT. Not everyone applies to all, even he/she could get in all. We are talking about 100-200 people each year.</p>
<p>In all honesty, I think getting into any Top 10-20 School is a big accomplishment.</p>
<p>jamesford:
-MIT attracts many math, science, and engineering people, the majority of which are males. If you agree with that, then admissions has to be easier for females in order to achieve an equal male/female ratio. What evidence have you to say it is not true?</p>
<p>-I meant to say that I don’t think the MIT kids are as quirky/weird as the Caltech ones. Although this is based mainly on personal experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly!! The fact that you got into Caltech is amazing! There are many people who haven’t gotten a single acceptance, but at this point there really isn’t any way to gauge your chances at one school. I know one person who was accepted to every single school he applied too and ended up at Harvard, but the vast majority are lucky to be accepted at just one of their reach schools. </p>
<p>Oh and it is much easier for girls to get into MIT. There’s a larger pool of strong math/ science oriented males than females which automatically means females have less competition. I know many females who applied to HYPS but most didn’t apply to MIT because it was too math/sciencey for them. Of course my own anecdotes don’t provide any conclusions to admissions as a whole, but I’m sure more males apply.</p>
<p>Stanford is in a league of its own. Look at these numbers:</p>
<p>Princeton:
SAT Critical Reading: 690 - 790 98%
SAT Math: 700 - 790 98%
SAT Writing: 690 - 780 98% </p>
<p>Yale:
SAT Critical Reading: 700 - 800 92%
SAT Math: 700 - 790 92%
SAT Writing: 700 - 790 92% </p>
<p>Harvard:
SAT Critical Reading: 700 - 800 98%
SAT Math: 700 - 790 98%
SAT Writing: 690 - 790 98% </p>
<p>Stanford:
SAT Critical Reading: 660 - 760 96%
SAT Math: 680 - 790 96%
SAT Writing: 660 - 760 96%</p>
<p>Well then I know of two Stanford students who were in the bottom 4% because none of their SAT scores were over 700 on a given section. They are excellent athletes. Maybe the bottom 4% is reserved for its athletes.</p>
<p>@ OP, I’m kind of in your boat right now! Accepted UChicago, Stanford, and Caltech but straight up denied at MIT, lol. I think the difference for me was using the Common App versus the MIT unique app. I know I spent a lot of time on my common app essay, but sort of copy/pasted my MIT essays. Maybe you had the same problem? Which would bode well for HYP, since they’re on the common app too…
Well congrats on Caltech btw! Good luck!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean bottom 25%. It’s not entirely clear from Professor101’s statistics, but these are ranges for the middle half. The percentages indicate how many people at the school submitted an SAT at all.</p>
<p>baelor-</p>
<p>stanford gets A LOT of applicants from CA. the reason they have 40% CA students is because so many of them apply. Their acceptance rate for CA isn’t significantly better than other states. You’ve said that in other threads too…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are failing to account for self-selection. Princeton has a disproportionate number of students from New Jersey, while Yale and Harvard have disproportionate numbers from Connecticut and Massachusetts, respectively. This is because people of those respective states tend to apply in disproportionate amounts and accept the offer (due to proximity) at also disproportionate percentages.</p>
<p>It’s just more noticeable with Stanford because you see “40%” and you think “wow! that’s almost half!”. And sure, 40% dwarfs the 12% of the US Population that California actually represents, but there are even more factors at work; California, for example, is more education oriented as a whole than some other states.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EXACTLY! I live in Cali, and literally EVERYONE’S dream school is Stanford. I think a quarter of my entire grade applied to Stanford which was the school that most applied to and not a single person got in. My school doesn’t represent every Cali school, but it proves as an example. Likewise, we had about 1-6 people for HYPMC since they were on the east coast and deemed too far, but Stanford is close and all the parents have dreamed of that school. California is also an overrepresented state with extreme competition compared to states like wyoming or south dakota.</p>
<p>I am aware of the self-selection. This issue was brought up in the other thread where I mentioned this difference.</p>
<p>The point remains: different applicant pools demand different criteria. West Coast applicants in general are different from East Coast applicants. The universities, as you have pointed out, do cater to their respective regions, which has an impact on how they view applicants from those regions. The geographic biases are of course due to self-selection of applicants, but the fact that they exist at all is still indicative of differences in the admissions process.</p>
<p>If you are willing to drop that point (without a resolution, even), consider the traits that Stanford seeks to examine through its supplement. Now consider the HYP supplements. Clearly different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you referring to the “Why Stanford” essay? Yale has a “Why Yale” essay, too…</p>
<p>Also, Stanford is one of the largest competitors of HYPM in cross-admit battles, and at the same time, HYPM takes away a good portion (something around 2/3) of the kids that do not accept Stanford’s offer. I unfortunately do not have statistics to site for this at the moment, but there are numerous little sources on it from each of the colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about the roommate and intellectual vitality essays? They target a particular type of student. Compare that to Princeton’s essay prompt on service. You can discern what the admissions committees especially value in applicants, or what the school is trying to produce via its alumni</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s true – no one is arguing that point. But I don’t have exact sample sizes off hand, so I would appreciate them if you have them. Even 100 applicants is nothing of consequence (what…5% of admitted students?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, my apologies. In that case, you have a point that Stanford gets to highlight certain qualities of its applicants better than other schools. However, the effectiveness and extent of that is questionable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this information is hard to come across, partially because many schools do not release such information. I once saw a Stanford release that talked about the cross-admit battle with HYPM, but I can’t seem to find it anymore. Best I could do was this 2004 article that shows that HYPM were Stanford’s largest cross-admit enemies by far: [We</a> offered, they declined: Many admits choose other prestigious universities](<a href=“You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News). There’s also an MIT Video that lists HYPS as its four largest overlap schools. </p>
<p>And for the record, 100 acceptees is sizable number. Consider the fact that Stanford only expects to lose 600 - 700 applicants to every other school total. Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT expect similar results.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s large in the context of only the cross-admits. But I’m talking about cross-admits as a fraction of total student body. If the admissions processes were very similar, you would expect a high percentage of cross-admits. One hundred students is relatively insignificant in that context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See admission officers’ posts in the MIT forum.</p>
<p>Engineering/science-related fields have been traditionally dominated by males, so when a female wishes to enter such a field, she’s essentially “going against the grain” and will likely be a more qualified applicant as a result of what she wishes to accomplish. Think about it - any male can apply to an engineering school without a second thought. But when a female is doing something that girls in general do not do, she will be more motivated to carry out her dream. It’s not that females have less competition and thus get in at higher rates, but that females in general tend to be more qualified and thus get in at higher rates. Self-selection at work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above</p>
<p>As someone who applied to MIT because she thought she’d get an admissions advantage, I’m now pretty well convinced that females don’t really have an easier time.
Deferred EA and then rejected.
I mean, I got into Stanford, so I’d like to think I wasn’t totally unqualified - and yet, even with the supposedly huge admissions advantage, I still didn’t make the cut.
Keep in mind, too, that the Stanford RD accept rate is 5.something, and the MIT EA rate was 11ish. That’s twice the rate of the school I actually got accepted to. </p>
<p>(Sorry for the tangent… Just saying!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re underestimating the number and I’m overestimating it. Your underestimation comes from the fact that not that we don’t know how many people even applied to more than one of these schools. My flaw is as you’ve pointed out, it is somewhat insignificant in the larger scope of things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this assertion to an extent, but do you have an explanation as to why females are grossly underrepresented in competitions with known gender-neutral selection processes such math, physics, chemistry, etc. Olympiads?</p>