Does this also apply to Wall St.'s Bro Culture? Nah, but seriously. Just call it what it is. A toxic workplace. And now that I'm done addressing the title, the

Does this also apply to Wall St.'s Bro Culture? Nah, but seriously. Just call it what it is. A toxic workplace. And now that I'm done addressing the title, the article doesn't seem to actually have have anything to do with "Bro Culture," so much as general bullet points about employment trends with regards to gender diversity. The word, "bro" doesn't appear elsewhere in the article, which makes no further attempt to even define it. Further, I have a few problems with its analysis. First, the article states that education pipeline changes are unlikely to address gender imbalances in tech because, "Women already earn about half of all college degrees in STEM subjects and have for more than a decade, but those figures include psychology, sociology and other female-dominated disciplines." I don't see how that fact precludes the possibility of bringing more women into the field through education. It doesn't even seem relevant; yes, computer science is part of STEM, but...it's ignored because other majors are also part of STEM? The article then asks, "What’s behind these [gender] gaps?" and only presents a single possible answer: "One study showed that college-age women tended to steer clear of engineering and computer majors because they think they must be brilliant, not just hard working, to succeed..." Okay, if that's the core issue then what can we do about it? Any suggestions? The author just moves on. The article's ostensible premise seems to be rattled off in question 7 with a few statistics and a single opinion, but I'm not totally sure that that's really what the title was driving at. I'm sorry, gender diversity in tech is a serious issue that merits serious discussion, but this article doesn't seem to have a solid idea of what it wants to discuss or say.