5 ms·

I don't follow this argument. You are suggesting that the rate of females leaving the major/school is exactly proportional to the grade they get. I don't belie

• davorak 13y ago
  > I don't follow this argument. You are suggesting that the rate of females leaving the major/school is exactly proportional to the grade they get. The percentage of females normal drops year by year in the CS programs I am familiar with. This does not seem to be happening at Mudd to the degree it does elsewhere. I have not see you put forward how initial acceptance has changed this trend, or that the trend exists at Mudd and they simply start the first year with a high female ratio say 40%-60% male-female. > I don't believe anyone would quit a school/major because they scored a little bit lower average. This might be possible if they all happened to be near the threshold for failing but I doubt Mudd is this strict. People do switch majors when they are below average, not always but I would be surprised if this reason is rare. Your argument now requires that the females are below average compared to the males but not so below average that they want to switch majors. I would count this as a minor complexity penalty to your argument. > Also everyone is well aware of affirmative action, so even if their grades were worse they would not think they would not be able to compete for the same jobs/academic positions. This by it self does not work at most universities. So what makes Mudd different that this argument works there?
  • codexon 13y ago
    > The percentage of females normal drops year by year in the CS programs I am familiar with. This does not seem to be happening at Mudd to the degree it does elsewhere. I have not see you put forward how initial acceptance has changed this trend, or that the trend exists at Mudd and they simply start the first year with a high female ratio say 40%-60% male-female. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with you, not with me. > People do switch majors when they are below average, not always but I would be surprised if this reason is rare. Your argument now requires that the females are below average compared to the males but not so below average that they want to switch majors. I would count this as a minor complexity penalty to your argument. This is not complex at all. Switching majors is major decision with many roadblocks. You will need approval and you will likely need to retake courses. This has dire implications such as wasting credits which means you will need more money to stay in college longer. You might even lose scholarships. All evidence points that differences between ranked individuals will be difficult to see. In activities that are completely quantifiable such as Olympic racing, the difference between the top people are measured in milliseconds, so it is quite feasible that the difference between male and female CS students at a selective college is similarly small in terms of absolute measurements. > This by it self does not work at most universities. So what makes Mudd different that this argument works there? What makes Mudd different is that they accepted more females to start with. This reasoning causes minorities to stay, it doesn't increase the number of acceptances.
    • davorak 13y ago
      > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with you, not with me. You will have to explain what claim you find extraordinary and what specific evidence you would find convincing for me to consider doing research to provide some. > This is not complex at all. I did not call it complex. You made an argument by occam's razor if details are added to the argument to make it viable it make it more complex and it benefits less from occam's razor. My argument or your added details: > All evidence points that differences between ranked individuals will be difficult to see. In activities that are completely quantifiable such as Olympic racing, the difference between the top people are measured in milliseconds, so it is quite feasible that the difference between male and female CS students at a selective college is similarly small in terms of absolute measurements. Weaken an occam's razor argument, some times called applying a complexity penalty. > What makes Mudd different is that they accepted more females to start with. This reasoning causes minorities to stay, it doesn't increase the number of acceptances. If I understand you correctly you think that the percentage of females in the 1st through graduation is controlled tightly by the starting percentage. Do you just expect it to hold steady for all 4 years?
      • codexon 13y ago
        I already repeated multiple times what claim I find ordinary: that Mudd is somehow able to retain so many female CS majors simply by accepting more. It is up to you to prove that they are able to do this otherwise. > You made an argument by occam's razor if details are added to the argument to make it viable it make it more complex and it benefits less from occam's razor. My argument or your added details I only explained the common sense reasoning that you somehow keep ignoring. I did not add any details the argument, merely to reinforce the fact that my argument stems from common sense while yours appears to make wild conjectures on how Harvey Mudd is better than every other CS department.
        • davorak 13y ago
          > I already repeated multiple times what claim I find ordinary: that Mudd is somehow able to retain so many female CS majors simply by accepting more. It is up to you to prove that they are able to do this otherwise. State your prediction for the female population by year dependent on initial enrollment percentage and I will consider do some hard research and bring it back. > I did not add any details the argument, merely to reinforce the fact that my argument stems from common sense Occam's razor argument is usually only effective if their is a obvious difference in the complexity of the two arguments. The details are often needed to establish weather or not their is a significant complexity difference. > yours appears to make wild conjectures on how Harvey Mudd is better than every other CS department. Is their a particular claim you are referencing? I try to stay away from making wild conjectures.