> 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.