Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley: Measuring bias is harder than is usually assumed, and the evidence is sometimes contrary to expectation.
Abstract
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 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 difficult for applicants of either sex to enter, there is a small but statistically significant bias in favor of women. The graduate departments that are easier to enter tend to be those that require more mathematics in the undergraduate preparatory curriculum. The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees, which seem quite fair on the whole, but apparently from prior screening at earlier levels of the educational system. Women are shunted by their socialization and education toward fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less well funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In graduate admissions to University of California Berkeley, females were less often admitted than males, but females applied to departments with lower admission rates and the overall admission process was judged legal.
“For instance, in graduate admissions to University of California Berkeley it was found that females were less often admitted than males [7]. However, females applied to departments with lower admission rates than males and the overall admission process was judged legal.”
From Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learning (2022) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001616 · Cited by 3,718 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3457607 · Cited by 5,812 · see citing works
Evolutionary Personality Psychology
Buss, D. M. (1991) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331 · Cited by 930 · see citing works
Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizons
Zhang, J. M., Harman, M., Ma, L., & Liu, Y. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2962027 · Cited by 897 · see citing works
Short and Long Sleep and Sleeping Pills: Is Increased Mortality Associated?
Kripke, D. F. (1979) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1979.01780010109014 · Cited by 660 · see citing works
A Review on Fairness in Machine Learning
Pessach, D., & Shmueli, E. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3494672 · Cited by 598 · see citing works
Interpretation and identification of causal mediation
Pearl, J. (2014) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0036434 · Cited by 554 · see citing works
Simpson's paradox in psychological science: a practical guide
Kievit, R. A., Frankenhuis, W. E., Waldorp, L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00513 · Cited by 542 · see citing works
Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning
Kilbertus, N., Rojas-Carulla, M., Parascandolo, G., Hardt, M., Janzing, D., & Schölkopf, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.02744 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
Cooper, H., & Patall, E. A. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0015565 · Cited by 339 · see citing works
A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis
Romei, A., & Ruggieri, S. (2014) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888913000039 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
FairTest: Discovering Unwarranted Associations in Data-Driven Applications
Tramèr, F., Atlidakis, V., Geambasu, R., Hsu, D., Hubaux, J.-P., Humbert, M., Juels, A., & Lin, H. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1510.02377 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
FairTest: Discovering Unwarranted Associations in Data-Driven Applications
Tramer, F., Atlidakis, V., Geambasu, R., Hsu, D., Hubaux, J.-P., Humbert, M., Juels, A., & Lin, H. (2017) · 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P) · doi:10.1109/eurosp.2017.29 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Handling Conditional Discrimination
liobaite, I., Kamiran, F., & Calders, T. (2011) · 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1109/icdm.2011.72 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Estimation of Controlled Direct Effects
Goetgeluk, S., Vansteelandt, S., & Goetghebeur, E. (2008) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2008.00673.x · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Kamiran, F., Žliobaitė, I., & Calders, T. (2013) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-012-0584-8 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Silva: Interactively Assessing Machine Learning Fairness Using Causality
Yan, J. N., Gu, Z., Lin, H., & Rzeszotarski, J. M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376447 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Anti-discrimination learning: a causal modeling-based framework
Zhang, L., & Wu, X. (2017) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-017-0058-x · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Fairness metrics and bias mitigation strategies for rating predictions
Ashokan, A., & Haas, C. (2021) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102646 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learning
Grabowicz, P. A., Perello, N., & Mishra, A. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533236 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Kaufmann, E., Reips, U.-D., & Maag Merki, K. (2016) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000251 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
A step toward building a unified framework for managing AI bias
Rana, S. A., Azizul, Z. H., & Awan, A. A. (2023) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1630 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A., & O'Connell, J. W.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- ORCID
- Bickel, P. J.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1975-02-07
- Volume
- 187
- Issue
- 4175
- Pages
- 398-404
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2048087720
- Cited by
- 659
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 41.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Keywords
- sex bias, postgraduate admission, gender discrimination, University of California, Berkeley, disaggregated data, women in graduate education, admissions committees, women's socialization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
