3 ms·
The headline exaggerates the gains for women. From the article: This year: total. = 135992 up 31% over last year female = 38195 up 39% over
by todd8 8y ago
The headline exaggerates the gains for women. From the article:
This year: total. = 135992 up 31% over last year
female = 38195 up 39% over last year
From this we can calculate last years numbers:
Last year: total = 103811
female = 27478
Comparing total participation:
This year: female/total = 26.5%
Last year: female/total = 28.1%
African-Americans and Hispanic and Latino students made
more robust gains. The gains for women might not even be statistically significant.
- SamUK96 8y agoIt would be useful to calculate the percentage difference between n_group/n_population and n_group_course/n_course. This would essentially calculate a "representivity" score for that course. So, for example, according to the 2010 US Census, Black or African Americans constitute 12.6% of the population. However, according to [1], they constitute only ~5% of the CS degrees awarded. Therefore the score for CS and Black or African Americans is |12.6 - 5|/12.6 = ~60% underrepresentation. [1] https://datausa.io/profile/cip/110701/#demographics https://datausa.io/profile/cip/110701/#demographics
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoThis negates the idea that a certain demographic may be disinclined to a particular subject (which is equivalent to being inclined towards other subjects). One needs access to courses without unnecessary discrimination, one does not need to be pushed in to courses simply to make their representation scores better.
- acomar 8y agoThat's a roughly 10% increase over last year in the relative rate of participation: (38195-27478)/(103811)*100 = 10.32% Comparing two percentages directly like that, while intuitive, misses trends in relatively small subsets of the larger population.