[zdragnar]

What should be taken away from this study? They found in two tiers no notable difference, and a slight advantage to women in the other, with the effect growing over time.

Then they state that this is all correlation, and we don't know about a dozen or two different variables such as whether the grant process self selects for more men to apply (and thus fail). No conclusion that men are disadvantaged may be drawn, they say.

Is this study worth building on? Why are people finding it interesting enough to vote it up to the front page?

What am I missing?

[ars]

There an ongoing desire to know if the different between men and women in the sciences is due to innate differences, or due to society causing a difference.

Research on this topic is rare, so when some is available people are very interested.

[coffeeaddict1]

> There an ongoing desire to know if the different between men and women in the sciences is due to innate differences, or due to society causing a difference.

Is it ongoing though? It seems to me that this is exceedingly rare and discouraged, given the political climate of most academic institutions in the western world.