4 ms·
> That means the most talented and impressive young man who applied and didn’t get in is objectively more talented and impressive than the least talented and im
by onlypassingthru 2y ago
> That means the most talented and impressive young man who applied and didn’t get in is objectively more talented and impressive than the least talented and impressive (though still extremely talented and impressive) woman who applied and got in.
That is a hasty generalization fallacy. That presumes the applicant pools were comprised of the same quality of applicants.
It could also be that there are simply more young men than young women willing to go to a tiny, expensive and boring undergraduate program.
- mchannon 2y agoTo the contrary, it presumes that the right edge of the curves for both applicant pools do _not_ connect at n - ~100. Given the size difference between cohorts, I argue the curves would never meet at all. If the sizes were identical or close, then you could argue I'm using the fallacy. Your second guess is correct.
- ghaff 2y agoI had zero interest in Caltech for reasons I probably couldn't tell you years later from when I was a young man. Ended up at a different engineering school somewhat by default and it was good for me. (Never even went on campus before I started.) No regrets.