Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions¶
Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A., & O'Connell, J. W. (1975). Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley. Science, 187(4175), 398-404.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Simpson–Yule Effect
- In admissions and hiring, an institution can appear to discriminate against a group in aggregate while admitting that group at higher rates in every department, because the group applied disproportionately to more competitive departments — the original and canonical case.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Supports the admissions-side reversal (aggregate bias against women, department rates equal or higher for women, driven by self-selection into competitive departments); does not cover hiring or 'every department'.
“Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the data are properly pooled, taking into account the autonomy of departmental decision making, thus correcting for the tendency of women to apply to graduate departments that are more …”
- In admissions and hiring, an institution can appear to discriminate against a group in aggregate while admitting that group at higher rates in every department, because the group applied disproportionately to more competitive departments — the original and canonical case.
- Simpson's Paradox
- Medicine and clinical research: a treatment beats a control among mild patients and among severe patients yet loses overall, because it was preferentially given to severe cases; the Berkeley gender-admissions reanalysis is the canonical observational example.
This sourceThe canonical observational instance of Simpson's paradox — aggregate UC Berkeley admissions appeared biased against women while department-by-department analysis showed no such bias, because women applied disproportionately to more competitive departments.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Abstract supports Berkeley admissions reversal (aggregate bias vs women; department-level little bias; women applied to harder departments) but not the treatment/control example.
“Examination of aggregate data on graduate admissions to the University of California, Berkeley, for fall 1973 shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants. Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the …”
- Medicine and clinical research: a treatment beats a control among mild patients and among severe patients yet loses overall, because it was preferentially given to severe cases; the Berkeley gender-admissions reanalysis is the canonical observational example.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:c719e5a10d01 · see in the full table