EDIT: With regard to what I pointed out in my original comment (below for reference), I believe the Nature article chart is in error. Reading the actual paper (

EDIT: With regard to what I pointed out in my original comment (below for reference), I believe the Nature article chart is in error. Reading the actual paper (p.55), the gap in "engineering and computer sciences" (while smaller than some other fields) is actually more statistically significant than some of the other results. I suppose that may be because they were able to trial more professors. I guess that means, be careful trusting charts, even from Nature's blog. The smaller gap may still count for something compared to a few worse fields, but it's not among the statistically-unclear results of the fields studied. --original below-- From the graph, "engineering and computer sciences" was one of the smallest measured gaps, and further didn't feature the "*" which indicated a statistically-significant result. So in all the often-justified criticism, the fact that CS/engineering are better than many other fields-of-practice should count for something. (Interestingly also per the chart, in 'Fine Arts' the faculty discrimination ran in favor of women/minorities, to a statistically-significant level.)