3 ms·
> If you read that article they believe it is due I did read it. A while ago. And a lot of the angry "rebuttals" as well. From the section you quoted: "...
by mpweiher 4y ago
> If you read that article they believe it is due
I did read it. A while ago. And a lot of the angry "rebuttals" as well.
From the section you quoted:
"...the mechanism resulting in women’s underrepresentation..."
So the "it" you refer to is not the 2:1 hiring advantage, but the underrepresentation.
The rest of your comment suffers from the same misunderstanding.
- DSMan195276 4y agoThe point is that the mechanism behind the underrepresentation and behind the 2:1 hiring advantage is the same. Consider: The groups compared in that study are the same size, but we also agree women are underrepresented in the overall group, due to facts that likely cause less-qualified women to leave the group. What do you think happens if you then pick an equal number of men and women from both groups and compare them? Which group will have more qualified candidates? Obviously the women.
- mpweiher 4y ago> the mechanism behind the underrepresentation and behind the 2:1 hiring advantage is the same. That turns out not to be the case. > Which group will have more qualified candidates? The candidates were equally qualified.