4 ms·

Close to triple through natural occurrence? Come now, you're the one being facile.

• joe_the_user 13y ago
  The point is the acceptance rate by itself is too murky a statistic to prove the gp's point.
  • cousin_it 13y ago
    Note that if acceptance rate is a murky statistic, then using underrepresentation to prove discrimination might be even murkier, because underrepresentation is a function of the acceptance rate and the number of applicants.
    • davorak 13y ago
      > Note that if acceptance rate is a murky statistic, then using underrepresentation to prove discrimination might be even murkier, If it was an isolated incident then yes. The gender difference in engineering/science and in this case CS is fairly broad and it seems unlikely that it does not point to something significant, cultural momentum and bias being a popular choice.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    • joe_the_user 13y ago
      So what? Under-representation is not used primary to prove discrimination, Under-representation is simply an undesirable state of affairs to many people. Some of the remedies for this involve correcting apparent discrimination, some involve encouraging girls to get involved with CS and some involve making CS more appealing to everyone (with the hope this will include a lot of girls). The focus or, uh, fixation of a certain breed of poster on "this doesn't prove discrimination, you can't prove I'm a sexist, no way..." seems telling to me but of course what seems clear to an Internet poster isn't evidence sufficient for policy.