Frequently cited but a fatally flawed study: > The first thing they noticed is that the raw tabulations showed women doing worse behind the screens. But perhap

Frequently cited but a fatally flawed study: > The first thing they noticed is that the raw tabulations showed women doing worse behind the screens. But perhaps, Ms. Goldin and Ms. Rouse explained, blind auditions “lowered the average quality of female auditionees.” To control for ability, they analyzed a small subset of candidates who took part in both blind and nonblind auditions in three of the eight orchestras. >The result was a tangle of ambiguous, contradictory trends. The screens seemed to help women in preliminary audition rounds but men in semifinal rounds. None of the findings were strong enough to draw broad conclusions one way or the other. >So where did Ms. Goldin and Ms. Rouse get their totemic conclusion that blind auditions dramatically improved the success of women candidates? After warning that their findings were not statistically significant, they declared them to be “economically significant.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-audition-study-11571599303 https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-auditi...