[Adams and Ferreira 2009] Adams, R., and D. Ferreira. 2009. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics 94(2): 291–309.

[Ahern and Dittmar 2009] Ahern, K., and K. Dittmar. 2009. The changing of the boards: The value effect of a massive exogenous shock. Under review.

[AAUW 2000] American Association of University Women. 2000. Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/TechSavvy.pdf.

[Ashcraft and Blithe 2009] Ashcraft, C., and S. Blithe. 2009. Women in IT: The Facts. Boulder, CO: National Center for Women & Information Technology.

[Ashcraft and Breitzman 2007] Ashcraft, C., and A. Breitzman. 2007. Who invents IT? An analysis of women’s participation in information technology patenting. National Center for Women & Information Technology. Retrieved from http://www.ncwit.org/pdf/PatentExecSumm.pdf.

[Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2004–05 Edition. Washington, DC: Labor Department, Labor Statistics Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm.

[Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010–11 Edition. Washington, DC: Labor Department, Labor Statistics Bureau. Available at http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/ooh20042005/www.bls.gov/OCO/index.html.

[Ceci and Williams 2010] Ceci, S.J., and W.M. Williams. 2010. The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[Ceci and Williams 2007] Ceci, S.J., and W.M. Williams, ed. 2007. Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.

[Ceci et al. 2009] Ceci, S.J., W.M. Williams, and S.M. Barnett. 2009. Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin 135(2): 218–261.

[Charles and Bradley 2006] Charles, M., and K. Bradley. 2006. A matter of degrees—Female underrepresentation in computer science programs cross-nationally. In Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresentation, ed. J. McGrath Cohoon and W. Aspray, 183–204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[College Board 2008] College Board. 2008. AP summary report (calculus AB, computer science A and AB). Princeton, N.J.: College Board. Retrieved from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/ap/archived/2008.

[Deary et al. 2007] Deary, I., K. Ferguson, M. Bastin, G. Barrow, L. Reid, J. Seckl, J. Wardlaw, and A. MacLullich. 2007. Skull size and intelligence and King Robert Bruce’s IQ. Intelligence 31: 519–525.

[Durndell and Lightbody 1993] Durndell, A., and P. Lightbody 1993. Gender and computing: Change over time? Computers and Education 21(4): 331–336.

[Eccles et al. 1999] Eccles, J., B. Barber, and D. Jozfowicz. 1999. Linking gender to educational, occupational and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. related model of achievement related choices. In Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence, ed. W. Swan, J. Langlois, and L. Gilbert, 153–192. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.

[Ferriman et al. 2009] Ferriman, K., D. Lubinski, and C. Benbow. 2009. Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(3): 517–532.

[Haier et al. 2005] Haier, R., R. Jung, R. Yeo, and M. Alkire. 2005. The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: Sex matters. Neuroimage 25(1): 320–327.

[Halpern et al. 2007] Halpern, D., C. Benbow, D.C. Geary, R. Gur, J. Hyde, and M.A. Gernsbacher. 2007. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1): 1–52.

[Harris and Raskino 2007] Harris, K., and M. Raskino. 2007. Women and men in IT: Breaking sexual stereotypes. Stamford, CT: Gartner.

[Hedges and Nowell 1995] Hedges, L., and A. Nowell. 1995. Sex differences in mental test scores: variability and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science 269: 41–45.

[Higher Education Research Institute 2008] Higher Education Research Institute. 2008. Freshman: Forty year trends, 1966–2006. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

[Honey 1994] Honey, M. 1994. The maternal voice in the technological universe. In Representations of Motherhood, ed. D. Bassin, M. Honey, and M.M. Kaplan, 220–239. New Haven: Yale University Press.

[Hyde and Lynn 2008] Hyde, J., and M. Lynn. 2008. Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science 321: 599–600.

[Joy and Carter 2007] Joy, L., and N. Carter. 2007. The bottom line: Corporate performance and women’s representation on boards. Catalyst Research Reports. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/200/the-bottom-line-corporate-performance-and-womens-representation-on-boards.

[Kochan 2010] Kochan, T. 2010. Personal communication, March 16.

[Kochan et al. 2003] Kochan, T., K. Bezrukova, R. Ely, S. Jackson, A. Joshi, K. Jehn, J. Leonard, D. Levine, and D. Thomas. 2003. The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management 42:3–21.

[London Business School 2007] London Business School. 2007. Innovative potential: Men and women in teams. Available at http://www.london.edu/newsandevents/news/2007/11/Women_in_Business_Conference_725.html.

[Lubinski et al. 2001] Lubinski, D., C. Benbow, D. Shea, H. Eftekhari-Sanjani, and B. Halvorson. 2001. Men and women at promise for scientific excellence: Similarity not dissimilarity. Psychological Science 12: 309–317.

[Mannix and Neale 2005] Mannix, E., and M. Neale. 2005. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6(4): 31–55.

[Margolis et al. 2000] Margolis, J., A. Fisher, and F. Miller. 2000. The anatomy of interest. Women’s Studies Quarterly 28(1/2): 104.

[Martin 1992] Martin, C., ed. 1992. In search of gender-free paradigms for computer science education. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

[McGrath Cohoon and Aspray 2006] McGrath Cohoon, J., and W. Aspray, ed. 2006. Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[National Center for Education Statistics 2008] National Center for Education Statistics. 2008. Classification of Instructional Program 11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences.

[Page 2007] Page, S. 2007. The Difference: How the power of diversity helps create better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[Sackett et al. 1991] Sackett, P., C. Dubois, and A. Noe. 1991. Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology 76(2): 263–267.

[Schofield 1995] Schofield, J. 1995. Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[Seymour and Hewitt 1994] Seymour, E., and N. Hewitt. 1994. Talking About Leaving: Factors Contributing to High Attrition Rates Among Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Bureau of Sociological Research.