Larry Summers, got into a little trouble when at a speech in 2005 at a National Bureau of Economic Research he said:
There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.
Are there studies that put forth the lack of "availability of aptitude" of women at the high end in the sciences hypothesis? (what if any conclusions did those studies draw?)