Blackpill The reason girls do better on average academically is easier access to sex and relationships.

[Hate_my_life]

OK, I've sobered up so I'm going to give you a fictitious example of how Simpson's paradox can incorrectly skew research conclusions.

Let's say at the University of Cucks, with a student body of 3,000, they offer three majors: aerospace engineering, political science, and basket weaving. Here's the breakdown of the number of students studying each major by gender.

	Male	Femoid	Total
Aerospace Engineering	600	200	800
Political Science	500	500	1,000
Basket Weaving	400	800	1,200
Total	1,500	1,500	3,000

Straightforward, right? OK, let's move on. Here's the average score, out of 100, broken down by major and gender:

	Male	Femoid	Average of all students in major
Aerospace Engineering	69	63	67.5
Political Science	76	74	75
Basket Weaving	93	90	91
Average of all students by gender	77.73	81.07

Interesting, right?

You see, at the hypothetical University of Cucks, the average femoid student has a higher score than the average male student. An inexperienced researcher might be tempted to conclude that therefore, femoid students outperform male ones.

But the average male student has a higher score than the average female student in every major. This occurs because a larger proportion of femoids are studying the easiest major (basket weaving), and there are fewer of them studying the hardest one (aerospace engineering), skewing the aggregate means.

Simpson's paradox essentially describes the phenomenon in which a trend appears in different subgroups of a dataset which disappears or even reverses when these groups are analyzed as a whole.

I'm not sure if Simpson's paradox applies to your argument IRL but this is why I am generally skeptical when someone says "femoids have a higher GPA or graduation rate" in order to conclude that "femoids perform better academically".

Yeah

TETRA IQ

 

[Deleted member 23656]

OK, I've sobered up so I'm going to give you a fictitious example of how Simpson's paradox can incorrectly skew research conclusions.

Let's say at the University of Cucks, with a student body of 3,000, they offer three majors: aerospace engineering, political science, and basket weaving. Here's the breakdown of the number of students studying each major by gender.

	Male	Femoid	Total
Aerospace Engineering	600	200	800
Political Science	500	500	1,000
Basket Weaving	400	800	1,200
Total	1,500	1,500	3,000

Straightforward, right? OK, let's move on. Here's the average score, out of 100, broken down by major and gender:

	Male	Femoid	Average of all students in major
Aerospace Engineering	69	63	67.5
Political Science	76	74	75
Basket Weaving	93	90	91
Average of all students by gender	77.73	81.07

Interesting, right?

You see, at the hypothetical University of Cucks, the average femoid student has a higher score than the average male student. An inexperienced researcher might be tempted to conclude that therefore, femoid students outperform male ones.

But the average male student has a higher score than the average female student in every major. This occurs because a larger proportion of femoids are studying the easiest major (basket weaving), and there are fewer of them studying the hardest one (aerospace engineering), skewing the aggregate means.

Simpson's paradox essentially describes the phenomenon in which a trend appears in different subgroups of a dataset which disappears or even reverses when these groups are analyzed as a whole.

I'm not sure if Simpson's paradox applies to your argument IRL but this is why I am generally skeptical when someone says "femoids have a higher GPA or graduation rate" in order to conclude that "femoids perform better academically".

Yeah

That's why I keep mentioning standardized tests.

Coz that shit is equal. Sats, GRE, lsat etc.

And funny enough in almost every single one of them, men score higher. When things are more equal, foids lose out.

Fuck gpa and all that shit

 

[chadalwayswins]

OK, I've sobered up so I'm going to give you a fictitious example of how Simpson's paradox can incorrectly skew research conclusions.

Let's say at the University of Cucks, with a student body of 3,000, they offer three majors: aerospace engineering, political science, and basket weaving. Here's the breakdown of the number of students studying each major by gender.

	Male	Femoid	Total
Aerospace Engineering	600	200	800
Political Science	500	500	1,000
Basket Weaving	400	800	1,200
Total	1,500	1,500	3,000

Straightforward, right? OK, let's move on. Here's the average score, out of 100, broken down by major and gender:

	Male	Femoid	Average of all students in major
Aerospace Engineering	69	63	67.5
Political Science	76	74	75
Basket Weaving	93	90	91
Average of all students by gender	77.73	81.07

Interesting, right?

You see, at the hypothetical University of Cucks, the average femoid student has a higher score than the average male student. An inexperienced researcher might be tempted to conclude that therefore, femoid students outperform male ones.

But the average male student has a higher score than the average female student in every major. This occurs because a larger proportion of femoids are studying the easiest major (basket weaving), and there are fewer of them studying the hardest one (aerospace engineering), skewing the aggregate means.

Simpson's paradox essentially describes the phenomenon in which a trend appears in different subgroups of a dataset which disappears or even reverses when these groups are analyzed as a whole.

I'm not sure if Simpson's paradox applies to your argument IRL but this is why I am generally skeptical when someone says "femoids have a higher GPA or graduation rate" in order to conclude that "femoids perform better academically".

Yeah

How do I get into this university and what are the entry requirements?

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

“you’ll be a slayer in college bro no worries”

it definitely is much easier to ltr some college roastie, but then you're left with a college roastie

 

[Reprobus]

why do more girls go to college than men?

Watch the video

 

[ihaveno1]

it's so much easier to be motivated when u live on tutorial island and get everything handed to u

 

[Sparrow's Song]

I've never seen a college aged femoid who looked sad and hopeless. Their lives are one big feminist romantic comedy until they die. Pretty much every femoid has access to college education. Not going to college is a poor and ugly male trait. More men either never go to college or struggle hard in college because the loneliness, mogging, inceldom, and subhumanity of their faces eats them away inside and they just want to cope, LDAR, or sui. People who are poor, ugly, and depressed just fail at life in all areas. Everything is shame and failure for them. The only success is a successful suicide.

 

[V0id]

That exectly what I WANT through in School, I was horny as fuck in middle/High school (Had early puberty), So I coulden't focus on my studies ad right after 7th grade I started to fail.

And of course you forgot to add bullies.

 

[Deleted member 22999]

Hate how foids do better than me at school even though they’re way dumber. This thread topic is probably why lol

 

[Deleted member 18214]

Theyre just submissive and what theyre told to

This and positive feed back that doesn't fuck up their brain.

 

[Deleted member 22907]

yes and also because roasties pick easier majors
STEM is usually dominated by all types of cels

 

[ionlycopenow]

Water is wet.

Sex is a basic biological need, and it's healthy for the human mind to have sex. Without sex, your mind isn't getting the proper sexual and emotional desires fulfilled. This causes a lot of stress. If you look at the best of the best in academics, the males dominate. However, when you look at averages, females dominate. The reason is because any female can get sex or a boyfriend but men in the bottom 50% will struggle immensely to get any sex at all. This demotivates them because they're not getting positive reinforcement. Not only that, but men have to put great strategy into trying to get laid, while girls just have to choose the best cock thrown at them. These means girls can focus on only school and get laid, while men have to focus on both school and sexual strategy. Plus for a lot of men their sexual strategy will often result in rejection and will therefore result in frustration, making it harder to focus on school.

There's other reasons girls do good in school, such as the whole system being geared towards them, but the easy access to sex makes it easier to succeed.

Very easy to succeed with everyone cheering you on left and right.

They're literally running in a straight line with no obstacles while everyone is cheering them on at the same time.

 

[Incel Gamer]

OP makes sense. I haven't had a girlfriend. That makes me depressed. Depression makes me lose motivation. No motivation makes me not want to go to college (or study if I did go).

 

[JedRunewatcherCel]

yes and also because roasties pick easier majors
STEM is usually dominated by all types of cels

I took a sociology course, in my lecture hall of 200 me and my bro were the only guys in there.

 

[BITG]

You beat me to it, yes, water is wet.

 

[Deleted member 16156]

OP makes sense. I haven't had a girlfriend. That makes me depressed. Depression makes me lose motivation. No motivation makes me not want to go to college (or study if I did go).

water is wet