There's always this study, although it's one of those "early results, many possible confounding factors, few samples" cases where the results should be taken wi

There's always this study, although it's one of those "early results, many possible confounding factors, few samples" cases where the results should be taken with a big pile of salt. http://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-team-smarter-more-women/ar/1 http://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-tea... Women in tech are also already statistical outliers, so the probability that a random female candidate is good may be slightly higher than for a random male candidate. Tricky to study though, starting with it not being easy to objectively measure how "good" a candidate is.