I like the approach here. Follow the data. It keeps everyone honest. All companies cherry pick from the best Universities. The fact they've had to look elsewhe

I like the approach here. Follow the data. It keeps everyone honest. All companies cherry pick from the best Universities. The fact they've had to look elsewhere means they're not getting the best from the best Universities (based on rankings). They're getting the best female graduates possible. I assume these are good enough but not the best. Male hires are probably still from the best universities. This creates an imbalance in competence. The female hires are good enough, the male hires are exceptional. Male hires move up the ranks on virtue of their competence. Other male hires leave after a couple promotion cycles expire. Now we have situation where male hires are predominantly in coveted positions in the company and female hires are mostly junior mid hires. The equality problem has now shifted up. What do you do then? How far is a company willing to go with an equality experiment before shareholders start noticing the erosion of the companies competitive advantage and start protesting. I appluad Duolingo for it's boldness. Am doubtful on its sustainability without either the rest of the industries following suit while pre university educational centres attempt to rebalance.