Good question.<p>There&#x27;s been a significant change (at least from my perspective) in the awareness of inequitable treatment of women in tech in the last few years, and I&#x27;d like to think that&#x27;s one of the contributing factors to this change.<p>If true, that means that the previous levels of entry into other subjects were (in part) due to students rejection of CS. If CS loses its repulsion factor then that brings everyone&#x27;s metrics back to neutral and will make other problems clearer.<p>Much as I hate to wheel out the trite &quot;everything is a market&quot; trope, the more subjects like physics will have to work to improve the treatment of women in science (although my perception is that it&#x27;s not as bad as tech)... and maybe (one day) the way science is run to make it a more appealing career.<p>I was a physics undergrad and chose to ditch science as a career at my first opportunity. A majority of the people who stayed on to do an MSc or PhD did so only because it would buy them a well payed role at a bank, or PWC, or Anderson (sorry, &quot;Accenture&quot;). It&#x27;s a shitty career, fighting for funding or tenure, full of victorian-era bullshit.<p>The sooner physics (for one) cleans house the better.