3 ms·

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 t

by 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.