{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025790349417637273, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033277870216306157, 'mean_word_length': 5.720670391061453, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Maybe the Issue is not Who Economists Are, but What Economics Is and How it’s Taught: Changing Course Content and Structure to Improve Retention of Women in Undergraduate Economics

Economics continues to struggle with gender representation throughout the education pipeline. One reason that has been highlighted for this problem is the presentation of economics in introductory courses. In contrast to prior interventions that were primarily messaging-centered around "who" economists are (e.g., nudging messages, instructor gender), we tested changing the content of the introductory courses' recitation sections, or "what" economics is, by implementing meaningful applied problems and structured group work to change perceptions about the nature of economics. Using institutional data of 8,727 students we find that, compared to historical baselines, the intervention improved grades overall, eliminated underperformance by women in grades (particularly in Macro), and greatly reduced the gap by gender in the likelihood of continuing on to Intermediate economics. These effects are evidence that the content of introductory economics courses, not just the messaging around the gender of economists.