Earlier quoted context omitted.
The numbers here are "and mathematical scientists"¹, so it's not (as upthread implies) CS grads, it's CS grads + other studies. I lived with a physics major; she did some code, would she have been counted?², but she was not a SWE in the making³. My gut would not think other math degrees would necessarily be more women heavy. But like upthread, my class was 2 women in a class of ~160, or Not sure what to say, aside fr…
This chart isn't lumping them, it has never been close to single digit percent for the past 50 years. Any class with sub 10% women is a big outlier. And as you can see from the graph, things hasn't really improved, classes used to have way more women, the single digit percent examples are low outliers at a time when things had already gotten really bad from where they used to. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2…
The phrasing of "Over the weekend, I…" implies some exogenous data source, but it's not shared. One can't even begin to replicate the conclusion reached.
> Any class with sub 10% women is a big outlier.
You claim, but what is being asked for here is evidence to support such; Occam's razor implies that not only should it not be, that it would be an outlier in the other direction. Hence the desire for something that lays out its methodology well enough that we can tell that it's not in that lovely third category of "statistics".
[1]: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-the-declinin...