Citation needed.
Anecdotal rebuttal: I know a bunch of female students at Harvey Mudd and that doesn't appear to be the case.
Anecdotal rebuttal: I know a bunch of female students at Harvey Mudd and that doesn't appear to be the case.
How does Harvey Mudd magically close their gender gap as though they suddenly decided to stop discriminating against females all these years?
If the girls you knew were, say 10% less capable compared to male applicants, would you be able to tell? I doubt it.
If you can't tell then what difference does it make?
Why isn't there a 50/50 balance and other similar initiatives for males for female dominated subjects like nursing and education?
I currently have not come across any such solid evidence and biological understanding. Seems unproductive to operate under an understanding far from 50/50 when I do not have solid evidence that I should be.
Why wouldn't you consider the possibility that most females don't want to sit in front of a screen all day with minimal social interaction often working 70 hour weeks?
Is it because you feel that the field of CS is so superior that no one could dislike it?
I was not implying you did. IQ is one well know metric but others such as "a general subject", as I asked for before, are welcome as well.
I asked for solid evidence that operating away form 50/50 is more productive. If you have some I am willing to look it over.
This CS professor from MIT explains why fewer females choose engineering studies like CS.
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
Specifically this quote.
> What about women? Don't they want to impress their peers? Yes, but they are more discriminating about choosing those peers. I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory.
I was not trying to communicate my desire. Rather what is optimal? I need strong evidence to operate far from 50/50.
> Specifically this quote.
This counts as evidence, but not enough evidence to get me to think the optimum is close to having 14-18% female CS degree recipients(2010).
Nice graph over time: http://blogs.computerworld.com/sites/computerworld.com/files... from article: http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput...
Summary statistics: http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/BytheNum...
Why can't you accept the possibility that females do not like CS as much as males do not like things like nursing or human resources?
If there is a social stigma, should we really force people who normally wouldn't choose it so we can have a 50/50 ratio just because that is the probability to be born as?
Who are you to say that they are happier doing CS instead of what they would've chosen without all this influence?
50/50 is the default with out additional information. Again I am not trying to statement my preferences.
> Why can't you accept the possibility that females do not like CS as much as males do not like things like nursing or human resources?
I did not say I can not. Like any idea I want good evidence and solid understanding to make strong claims.
> If there is a social stigma, should we really force people who normally wouldn't choose it so we can have a 50/50 ratio just because that is the probability to be born as?
I have not seen anyone make the argument to force people to take CS courses.
> Who are you to say that they are happier doing CS instead of what they would've chosen without all this influence?
Trying is better then not trying. Influence exist weather intentional or not. Unintentional influences are not inherently better then intentional.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.