Career Paths of European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad (EGMO) Medalists

Abstract

The European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad (EGMO) was launched in 2012 to increase female participation in international mathematics competitions. Each year, four of the most mathematically talented girls from each participating country compete in the EGMO. In this article, we match each EGMO medalist with male participants from the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) and compare their career paths. In the full sample, we found no statistically significant gender differences in international mobility. However, girls were less likely than boys to choose mathematics as their undergraduate major, to complete a PhD, and to publish. They were more likely to attend a top-10 global university, but this result is only marginally significant in some specifications. When we restrict the sample to EGMO medalists who also participated in the IMO, obtaining a first degree in the United States or the United Kingdom becomes statistically significant, and attending a top-10 global university remains only marginally significant in some specifications, while the other factors lose statistical significance.

Plain Language Summary

The Early Careers of EGMO Medalists are Compared to Those of Male IMO Participants

Girls are underrepresented in elite mathematical competitions such as the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO). To help address this, the European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad (EGMO) was launched in 2012 as a girls-only alternative. However, there is a lack of studies analyzing whether EGMO has achieved its objective of motivating girls to pursue careers in science. In this study, we examine the academic and professional trajectories of EGMO medalists. We compare their outcomes with those of male IMO participants, matching individuals by country and cohort. We found that EGMO medalists were less likely to major in mathematics, attain a PhD, or publish research. When we looked only at EGMO medalists who also participated in the IMO, the differences in outcomes disappeared.

Keywords

mathematics Olympiad gifted students gender career paths brain drain publication performance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agarwal

Ganguli

Gaulé

Smith

(2023). Why US immigration matters for the global advancement of science. Research Policy, 52(1), 104659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104659

Agarwal

Gaule

(2020). Invisible geniuses: Could the knowledge frontier advance faster? American Economic Review: Insights, 2(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20190457

Andreescu

Gallian

J. A.

Kane

J. M.

Mertz

J. E.

(2008). Cross-cultural analysis of students with exceptional talent in mathematical problem solving. Notices of the AMS, 55(10), 1248–1260.

Bahar

A. K.

(2021). Trends in gender disparities among high-achieving students in mathematics: An analysis of the American Mathematics Competition (AMC). Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220960453

Balducci

Larose

M. P.

Stoet

Geary

D. C.

(2024). The gender-equality paradox in intraindividual academic strengths: A cross-temporal analysis. Psychological Science, 35(11), 1246–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241271330

Berg

(2021). Statistical analysis of the International Mathematical Olympiad. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 43(1), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00283-020-10015-z

Breda

Napp

(2019). Girls’ comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in math-related fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(31), 15435–15440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905779116

Buser

Yuan

(2019). Do women give up competing more easily? Evidence from the lab and the Dutch math Olympiad. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(3), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170160

Campbell

J. R.

Walberg

H. J.

(2010). Olympiad studies: Competitions provide alternatives to developing talents that serve national interests. Roeper Review, 33(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.530202

10.

Eagly

A. H.

Hall

J. A.

(2025). The kernel of truth in gender stereotypes: Consider the avocado, not the apple. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 118, 104713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104713

11.

Ellison

Swanson

(2010). The gender gap in secondary school mathematics at high achievement levels: Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.2.109

12.

Ellison

Swanson

(2023). Dynamics of the gender gap in high math achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 58(5), 1679–1711. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.58.5.0620-10972R1

13.

European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad. (n.d.). European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad official website. https://www.egmo.org

14.

Gibson

McKenzie

(2011). The microeconomic determinants of emigration and return migration of the best and brightest: Evidence from the Pacific. Journal of Development Economics, 95(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2009.11.002

15.

Halpern

D. F.

Benbow

C. P.

Geary

D. C.

Gur

R. C.

Hyde

J. S.

Gernsbacher

M. A.

(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x

16.

International Mathematical Olympiad. (n.d.). Results by year. http://www.imo-official.org/results_year.aspx

17.

Jung

J. Y.

Lee

(2021). After the international mathematical Olympiad: The educational/career decisions and the development of mathematical talent of former Australian Olympians. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986221991160

18.

Lengfelder

Heller

K. A.

(2002). German Olympiad studies: Findings from a retrospective evaluation and from in-depth interviews: Where have all the gifted females gone. Journal of Research in Education, 12(1), 86–92.

19.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x

20.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Webb

R. M.

Rechek-Bleske

(2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17(3), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01685.x

21.

Luo

Chen

(2024). The impact of math-gender stereotypes on students’ academic performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Intelligence, 12(8), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12080075

22.

Makel

M. C.

Wai

Peairs

Putallaz

(2016). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: An update and cross cultural extension. Intelligence, 59, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.09.003

23.

Park

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2008). Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19(10), 957–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02182.x

24.

Robertson

K. F.

Smeets

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410391442

25.

Saul

Vaderlind

(2022). Outreach by the International Mathematical Olympiad to the mathematics education community. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 54(5), 997–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01381-3

26.

Steegh

A. M.

Höffler

T. N.

Keller

M. M.

Parchmann

(2019). Gender differences in mathematics and science competitions: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(10), 1431–1460. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21580

27.

U.S. News & World Report. (2025). Best global universities in mathematics [Subject rankings]. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/mathematics

28.

Wai

Cacchio

Putallaz

Makel

M. C.

(2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30 year examination. Intelligence, 38(4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006

29.

Wan

Lauermann

Bailey

D. H.

Eccles

J. S.

(2023). Girls’ comparative advantage in language arts explains little of the gender gap in math-related fields: A replication and extension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(40), e2305629120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2305629120

30.

Yuret

(2024). Career paths of the International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO) medalists. Scientometrics, 129(6), 3469–3491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05042-y

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB