Hacker News Reader

How does this premise:

> I can guarantee you that way more men applied to Caltech than women did.

lead to this conclusion:

>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.

View on HN

I think they're arguing from the statistical "spread" of capabilities in a group of women as compared to a group of men. Not sure if it's a valid conclusion but that's how I read it.

Unless the pool of females applying was significantly more qualified than the males, it is almost certainly true. Just a matter of statistics.

I think it's feasible that the females were significantly more qualified than the males. The fact that going to Caltech is seemingly against the gender norm for women may actually cause them to self-select for only the most qualified and dedicated to STEM to apply. Whereas a lot more men may have applied 'just because'.

Also, women are just doing better in school right now. The average female college applicant is better than the average male college applicant. So it's not hard to imagine this it true for CalTech too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com