#georgia tech

I don't have any way of verifying this. But my god, do I have a new favorite YouTube video.

The performance would be impressive enough. But this crap rendering of it unironically makes it transcendant.

No I'm not being ironic.

You'll want headphones for this beautiful noise.

"STEVEHHHHHN! WHOOOO!"

Bio-based film matches traditional plastic packaging in blocking moisture and oxygen

Plastic packaging is ubiquitous in our world, with its waste winding up in landfills and polluting oceans, where it can take centuries to degrade. To ease this environmental burden, industry has worked to adopt renewable biopolymers in place of traditional plastics. However, developers of sustainable packaging have faced hurdles in blocking out moisture and oxygen, a barrier critical for protecting food, pharmaceuticals, and sensitive electronics. Now, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed a biologically-based film made from natural ingredients found in plants, mushrooms, and food waste that can block moisture and oxygen as effectively as conventional plastics. Their findings were recently published in ACS Applied Polymer Materials.

By: James L. Nuzzo

Published: Mar 31, 2026

In January of 2026, the National Association of Scholars hosted a webinar titled “DEI Reform at the Universities.” One of the speakers in the webinar was William (Bill) Frezza, a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a co-founder of MIT Free Speech Alliance. One part of Frezza’s presentation focused on the number of females and males who applied to MIT and were eventually admitted into MIT. Frezza presented the percentages of females and males who were admitted and then expressed the result as a ratio, which Frezza termed the “bias ratio.” Frezza’s presentation was later covered by The College Fix.

The current Data Brief investigates this topic further. My first aim was to replicate Frezza’s findings. My second aim was to explore the female:male ratio at other major technical universities in the United States (U.S.). The other universities included California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Carnegie Mellon University, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech).

Like Frezza, I acquired the relevant data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). I extracted data on the number of male and female applicants and admittees each year from 2001 (earliest year data are available) to 2024. For each university, three graphs are presented. The first graph shows the percent of males and females admitted (bars and left y-axis) and the resulting female:male preference ratio (line and right y-axis). The horizontal dashed line on these graphs represents a female:male preference ratio of 1.0 (i.e., no sex preference). The second graph shows the numbers of males and females who applied to the university each year. The third graph shows the numbers of males and females who were admitted to the university each year.

–

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Each year between 2001 and 2024, MIT admitted a larger percentage of female than male applicants. Consequently, the female:male preference ratio was greater than 1.0 each year.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual percentages of female and male applicants admitted to MIT were 15.6% and 6.9%, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual female:male preference ratio at MIT was 2.20. Between 2008 and 2020, the female:male preference ratio at MIT was relatively constant, ranging from 2.16 to 2.22 over that time. In 2014, the ratio was 1.94.

Each year between 2001 and 2024, more males than females applied to MIT.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual numbers of male and female applicants to MIT were 12,422 and 5,690, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the number of males and females admitted to MIT each year was roughly similar. Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual numbers of males and female admitted to MIT were 782 and 748, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the difference in raw numbers of males and females admitted to MIT ranged from 149 more male than female admittees in 2001 to 53 more female than male admittees in 2020. Between 2001 and 2024, the average difference in raw numbers of males and females admitted to MIT was 34.

Since 2018, MIT has admitted more female than male applicants each year.

–

California Institute of Technology (Caltech)

Each year between 2001 and 2024, Caltech admitted a larger percentage of female than male applicants. Consequently, the female:male preference ratio was greater than 1.0 each year.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual percentages of female and male applicants admitted to Caltech were 18.0% and 8.6%, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual female:male preference ratio at Caltech was 2.23. In 2014, the ratio was 2.42.

Each year between 2001 and 2024, more males than females applied to Caltech.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual numbers of male and female applicants to Caltech were 4,958 and 1,916, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual numbers of males and female admitted to Caltech were 314 and 239, respectively.

The number of males and females admitted to Caltech each year has changed over time. Historically, more males were admitted to Caltech each year. However, in five different years in the past 10 years, more females than males were admitted to Caltech. Those years were 2016, 2017, 2018, 2022, and 2024.

–

Carnegie Mellon University

Each year between 2001 and 2024, Carnegie Mellon University admitted a larger percentage of female than male applicants. Consequently, the female:male preference ratio was greater than 1.0 each year.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual percentages of female and male applicants admitted to Carnegie Mellon University were 32.6% and 22.1%, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual female:male preference ratio at Carnegie Mellon University was 1.54. In 2014, the ratio was 1.50.

Each year between 2001 and 2024, more males than females applied to Carnegie Mellon University.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual numbers of male and female applicants to Carnegie Mellon University were 13,334 and 8,059, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual numbers of males and female admitted to Carnegie Mellon University were 2,651 and 2,342, respectively.

The number of males and females admitted to Carnegie Mellon University has changed over time. Historically, more males were admitted to Carnegie Mellon University each year. However, in 2016, the number of males and females admitted to Carnegie Mellon University was similar (2,460 males, 2,413 females). In all subsequent years except 2024, more females than males were admitted to Carnegie Mellon University.

–

Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech)

Each year between 2001 and 2024, Georgia Tech admitted a larger percentage of female than male applicants in all years except 2006, 2007, and 2008. Consequently, the female:male preference ratio was greater than 1.0 for most years.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual percentages of female and male applicants admitted to Georgia Tech were 46.6% and 39.8%, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual female:male preference ratio at Georgia Tech was 1.31. In 2014, the ratio was 1.65.

Each year between 2001 and 2024, more males than females applied to Georgia Tech University.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual numbers of male and female applicants to Georgia Tech were 16,771 and 7,751, respectively.

Between 2001 and 2024, the average annual numbers of males and females admitted to Georgia Tech were 4,482 and 2,685, respectively. The difference between the number of males and females admitted to Georgia Tech has decreased over time.

–

All Four Technical Universities

When the female:male preference ratios for the four major technical universities are displayed on one graph, the differences between the ratios can be seen more clearly.

Historically, Georgia Tech and Carnegie Mellon University have had lower female:male preference ratios than MIT and Caltech.

–

Sources

National Center for Education Statistics - Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)

–

Bonus Commentary

The current analysis revealed the female:male preference ratios for student admissions at four major technical universities in the U.S.: Caltech, Carnegie Mellon University, Georgia Tech, and MIT. Since 2001, all these universities have consistently received considerably more applications from males than females. Yet, the percentage of females who have been admitted to these universities has typically been greater than the percentage of males who have been admitted. Consequently, the female:male preference ratio in admissions has consistently been well above 1.0 for these universities. Since 2014, the female:male preference ratios at Carnegie Mellon University and Georgia Tech have typically ranged between 1.5 and 2.0. At Caltech, the female:male preference ratio has been above 2.0 for many years. At MIT, the female:male preference ratio has ranged between 2.0 and 2.5 for most years since 2001.

In the graphs, one can see similarities in the absolute numbers of males and females who have been admitted to each of these universities. This admissions trend has occurred against a backdrop of significantly more male than female applicants. Thus, the results are odd. They seem to suggest that these technical universities are implementing sex quotas or admission policies that weigh sex heavily. If this is true, then these universities might be violating federal law on grounds of sex discrimination (e.g., Title IX).

According to Frezza, the head of admissions at MIT has allegedly suggested that the reasons for MIT’s high female:male preference ratio is that MIT receives significantly more applications from males than females because males overrate their capabilities, plus, the pool of female applicants is consistently twice as good as the pool of male applicants. Frezza suggested that one way to examine the validity of this claim would be for the university to release the SAT scores of the males and females who are admitted and denied admission.

Until such an analysis is conducted, I will refer to the ratio as the “preference ratio” rather than the “bias ratio” or “discrimination ratio.” The reason is because “bias ratio” and “discrimination ratio” imply wrongdoing, whereas “preference ratio” is a broader, more neutral term that may or may not imply wrongdoing depending on the context. Wrongdoing cannot be established here until the SAT scores are released or until internal university admissions documents are acquired via freedom of information requests.

==