Despite the striking reversal of the gender gap in education, women pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees at much lower rates than those of their male peers. This study extends existing explanations for these gender differences and examines the role of the high school context for plans to major in STEM fields. Building on recent gender theories, we argue that widely shared and hegemonic gender beliefs manifest differently across schools so that the gender-specific formation of study plans is shaped by the local environment of high schools. Using the National Education Longitudinal Study, we first show large variations between high schools in the ability to attract students to STEM fields conditional on a large set of pre–high school measures. Schools that are successful in attracting students to these fields reduce the gender gap by 25 percent or more. As a first step toward understanding what matters about schools, we then estimate the effect of two concrete high school characteristics on plans to major in STEM fields in college—a high school’s curriculum in STEM and gender segregation of extracurricular activities. These factors have a substantial effect on the gender gap in plans to major in STEM: a finding that is reaffirmed in a number of sensitivity analyses. Our focus on the high school context opens concrete avenues for policy intervention and is of central theoretical importance to understand the gender gap in orientations toward STEM fields.
BeutelAnn M.MariniMargaret Mooney. 1995. “Gender and Values.” American Sociological Review60(3):436–48.
2.
BuchmannClaudiaDiPreteThomas A.2006. “The Growing Female Advantage in College Completion: The Role of Family Background and Academic Achievement.” American Sociological Review71(4):515–41.
3.
BuchmannClaudiaDiPreteThomas A.McDanielAnne. 2008. “Gender Inequalities in Education.” Annual Review of Sociology34(1):319–37.
4.
CechErin. 2013. “The Self-expressive Edge of Occupational Sex Segregation.” American Journal of Sociology119(3):747–89.
5.
CechErinRubineauBrianSilbeySusanSeronCaroll. 2011. “Professional Role Confidence and Gendered Persistence in Engineering.” American Sociological Review76(5):641–66.
6.
CharlesMariaBradleyKaren. 2002. “Equal but Separate? A Cross-national Study of Sex Segregation in Higher Education.” American Sociological Review67(4):573–99.
7.
CharlesMariaBradleyKaren. 2009. “Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries.” American Journal of Sociology114(4):924–76.
8.
ColemanJames S.1960. “The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement.” American Journal of Sociology65(4):337–47.
9.
CorrellShelley J.2001. “Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-assessments.” American Journal of Sociology106(6):1691–1730.
10.
CurtinThomas R.IngelsSteven J.WuShiyingHeuerRuth. 2002. National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: Base-year to Fourth Follow-up Data File User’s Manual. NCES 2002-323. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
11.
DaltonBenIngelsSteven J.DowningJaneBozickRobert. 2007. Advanced Mathematics and Science Coursetaking in the Spring High School Senior Classes of 1982, 1992 and 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
12.
DaviesScottGuppyNeil. 1996. “Fields of Study, College Selectivity, and Student Inequalities in Higher Education.” Social Forces75(4):1439–62.
EcclesJacquelynne. 2007. “Where Are All the Women? Gender Differences in Participation in Physical Science and Engineering.” Pp. 199–210 in Why Aren’t More Women in Science? Top Researchers Debate the Evidence, edited by CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
15.
EderDonnaParkerStephen. 1987. “The Cultural Production and Reproduction of Gender: The Effect of Extracurricular Activities on Peer-group Culture.” Sociology of Education60(3):200–13.
16.
EisenhartMargaret A.2008. “We Can’t Get There from Here: High School Girls Consider Engineering.”
Paper presented at the Women in Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN) national webcast, September 17–19, Chicago, IL.
17.
EllisonGlennSwansonAshley. 2010. “The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels: Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions.” Journal of Economic Perspectives24(2):109–28.
18.
FrankKenneth A.MullerChandraSchillerKathryn S.Riegle-CrumbCatherineMuellerAnna StrassmannCrosnoeRobertPearsonJennifer. 2008. “The Social Dynamics of Mathematics Coursetaking in High School.” American Journal of Sociology113(6):1645–96.
19.
FromePamela M.AlfeldCorinne J.EcclesJacquelynne S.BarberBonnie L.2006. “Why Don’t They Want a Male-dominated Job? An Investigation of Young Women Who Changed Their Occupational Aspirations.” Educational Research and Evaluation12(4):359–72.
20.
GelmanAndrewHillJennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/hierarchical Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HedgesLarry V.NowellAmy. 1995. “Sex Differences in Mental Test Scores, Variability, and Numbers of High-scoring Individuals.” Science269(5220):41–45.
22.
HillCatherineCorbettChristianneSt. RoseAndresse. 2010. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
IchinoAndreaMealliFabriziaNanniciniTommaso. 2008. “From Temporary Help Jobs to Permanent Employment: What Can We Learn from Matching Estimators and Their Sensitivity?”Journal of Applied Econometrics23(3):305–27.
25.
ImbensGuido W.2004. “Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects under Exogeneity: A Review.” Review of Economics and Statistics86(1):4–29.
26.
JacobB. A.LefgrenL.SimsD. P.2010. “The Persistence of Teacher-induced Learning.” Journal of Human Resources45(4):915–43.
27.
JohnsonMonica Kirkpatrick. 2002. “Social Origins, Adolescent Experiences, and Work Value Trajectories during the Transition to Adulthood.” Social Forces80(4):1307–40.
28.
KaneThomas J.StaigerDouglas O.2008. “Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation.” Working Paper 14607, National Bureau of Economic Research, Chicago, IL.
29.
KonradAlison M.RitchieJ. EdgarLiebPamelaCorrigallElizabeth. 2000. “Sex Differences and Similarities in Job Attribute Preferences: A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin126(4):593–641.
30.
LeeJ.GriggW.DionG.2007. The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
31.
LegewieJoscha. 2012. “Die Schätzung von Kausalen Effekten: Überlegungen zu Methoden der Kausalanalyse anhand von Kontexteffekten in der Schule.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie64(1):123–53.
32.
LegewieJoschaDiPreteThomas A.2009. “Family Determinants of the Changing Gender Gap in Educational Attainment: A Comparison of the U.S. and Germany.” Schmollers Jahrbuch129(2):1–13.
33.
LegewieJoschaDiPreteThomas A.2011. “Gender Differences in the Effect of Peer SES: Evidence from a Second Quasi-experimental Case Study.” Working paper, Columbia University, New York.
34.
LegewieJoschaDiPreteThomas A.2012a. “School Context and the Gender Gap in Educational Achievement.” American Sociological Review77(3):463–85.
35.
LegewieJoschaDiPreteThomas A.2012b. “High School Environments, STEM Orientations, and the Gender Gap in Science and Engineering Degrees.” Working paper, Columbia University, New York.
36.
LegewieJoschaDiPreteThomas A.2014. “Pathways to Science and Engineering Bachelor Degrees for Men and Women.” Sociological Science1(1):41–48.
37.
LohmanDavid F.LakinJoni M.2009. “Consistencies in Sex Differences on the Cognitive Abilities Test across Countries, Grades, Test Forms, and Cohorts.” British Journal of Educational Psychology79(2):389–407.
38.
MannAllisonDiPreteThomas. 2013. “Trends in Gender Segregation in the Choice of Science and Engineering Majors.” Social Science Research42(6):1519–41.
39.
McCaffreyDaniel F.LockwoodJ. R.KoretzDanielLouisThomas A.HamiltonLaura. 2004. “Models for Value-added Modeling of Teacher Effects.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics29(1):67–101.
40.
MorganStephen L.GelbgiserDafnaWeedenKim A.2013. “Feeding the Pipeline: Gender, Occupational Plans, and College Major Selection.” Social Science Research42(4):989–1005.
41.
National Center for Educational Statistics. 2009. Digest of Educational Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.
42.
ParkHyunjoonBehrmanJere R.ChoiJaesung. 2013. “Causal Effects of Single-sex Schools on College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools.” Demography50(2):447–69.
43.
RaudenbushStephen W.BrykAnthony S.2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
RidgewayCecilia L.2001. “Gender, Status, and Leadership.” Journal of Social Issues57(4):637–55.
45.
RidgewayCecilia L.CorrellShelley J.2004. “Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations.” Gender & Society18(4):510–31.
46.
Riegle-CrumbCatherineHumphriesMelissa. 2012. “Exploring Bias in Math Teachers’ Perceptions of Students’ Ability by Gender and Race/ethnicity.” Gender & Society26(2):290–322.
47.
RothsteinJesse. 2010. “Teacher Quality in Educational Production: Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement.” Quarterly Journal of Economics125(1):175–214.
48.
ShadishWilliam R.ClarkM. H.SteinerPeter M.2008. “Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom Assignments.” Journal of the American Statistical Association103(484):1334–44.
49.
TaiRobert H.LiuChristine QiMalteseAdam V.FanXitao. 2006. “Planning Early for Careers in Science.” Science312(5777):1143–44.
50.
WareNorma C.LeeValerie E.1988. “Sex Differences in Choice of College Science Majors.” American Educational Research Journal25(4):593–614.
51.
XieYuA. ShaumanKimberlee. 2005. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
