<p>ColdWind:
Errr… actually, post #27 shows nicely that lizzardfire’s assertions were correct. In addition. it shows nicely that your messages are self-contradictory (supported with citations). In addition, it challenges you to (at least try to) prove your point at the same level as it was done by lizzardfire.</p>
<p>You certainly can refuse to do the last one, but I don’t know how you can refuse to accept the first two with a straight face.</p>
<p>The difference in selectivity can be based on more strict self-selection among girls, as it was already mentioned several times. Sure, it could be based on other factors (one of which you find to be “simple, clear & true” explanation), but you did not support your point of view in any way so far, so I don’t see why your interpretation should be accepted instead of others.</p>
<p>I actually have some anecdotal evidence which speaks for the “self-selection” version: three “tech-y” girls I have known decided against applying to Caltech and applied to MIT instead. Their reasoning ranged from “in MIT, they give preference to girls” to “I am not sure I am strong enough, what if I’ll find out that engineering is too much for me?” As American mainstream culture is not supportive to girl nerds, they tend to be less sure about their capabilities… and yes, all three had competitive “stats” for either institution.</p>