Pedro Domingos

dril.jpg

"Here are some papers that don't actually support my position. And I haven't read them. But I'm very smart!"

From "We find the evidence for recent sex discrimination–when it exists–is aberrant, of small magnitude, and is superseded by larger, more sophisticated analyses showing no bias, or occassion bias in favor of women"

It’s almost as if he didn’t actually read either of these and just linked to the first couple of cherry picked examples he googled that seemed to support his view

A. Those studies don’t actually show that half of current women STEM faculty were hired over more qualified men, as you say. B. You’re ignoring a much larger number of studies showing disadvantages faced by women in STEM (and in academia more broadly).

You read the article right? Conclusions : "The primary factors in women’s underrepresentation are prefer- ences and choices—both freely made and constrained:

“Women choose at a young age not to pursue math-intensive careers, with few adolescent girls expressing desires to be engineers or phys- icists, preferring instead to be medical doctors, veterinarians, biologists, psychologists, and lawyers.