Gender Equity in College Majors: Looking Beyond the STEM/Non-STEM Dichotomy for Answers Regarding Female Participation

Abstract

Women are underrepresented in many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and in some non-STEM majors (e.g., philosophy). Combining newly gathered data on students’ perceptions of college major traits with data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), we find that perceived gender bias against women emerges as the dominant predictor of the gender balance in college majors. The perception of the major being math or science oriented is less important. We replicate these findings using a separate sample to measure college major traits. Results suggest the need to incorporate major-level traits in research on gender gaps in college major choices and the need to recognize the impact of perceptions of potential gender discrimination on college major choices.

Keywords

gender higher education propensity score matching STEM

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adamson

L. B.

Foster

M. A.

Roark

M. L.

Reed

D. B.

(1998). Doing a science project: Gender differences during childhood. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(8), 845–857.

Angrist

J. D.

Pischke

J. S.

(2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Arcidiacono

Hotz

V. J.

Kang

(2012). Modeling college major choices using elicited measures of expectations and counterfactuals. Journal of Econometrics, 166(1), 3–16.

Balsamo

Lauriola

Saggino

(2013). Work values and college major choice. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 110–116.

Blickenstaff

J. C.

(2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.

Bonous-Hammarth

(2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for science, mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 92–111.

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

(2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157−3162.

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

Barnett

S. M.

(2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218–261.

10.

Charles

(2011). What gender is science? Contexts, 10, 22–28.

11.

Cheryan

(2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 184–190.

12.

Cottingham

M. D.

(2014). Recruiting men, constructing manhood: How health care organizations mobilize masculinities as nursing recruitment strategy. Gender and Society, 28(1), 133–156.

13.

Crosnoe

(2005). Double disadvantage or signs of resilience? The elementary school contexts of children from Mexican immigrant families. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 269–303.

14.

Cundiff

J. L.

Vescio

T. K.

Loken

(2013). Do gender-science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16(4), 541–554.

15.

Dalton

Ingels

S. J.

Downing

Bozick

(2007). Advanced mathematics and science coursetaking in the spring high school senior classes of 1982, 1992, and 2004. statistical analysis report (NCES 2007-312). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

16.

DeJarnette

(2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133, 77–84.

17.

Dey

J. G.

Hill

(2007). Beyond the pay gap. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

18.

DiDonato

Strough

(2013). Do college students’ gender-typed attitudes about occupations predict their real-world decisions? Sex Roles, 68, 536–549.

19.

Diekman

A. B.

Brown

E. R.

Johnston

A. M.

Clark

E. K.

(2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles a new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057.

20.

Eccles

(1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.

21.

Eccles

(2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89.

22.

Eccles

(2011). Gendered educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 195–201.

23.

Elliott

Strenta

A. C.

Adair

Matier

Scott

(1996). The role of ethnicity in choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 37(6), 681–709.

24.

Ethington

C. A.

(2001). Differences among women intending to major in quantitative fields of study. Journal of Educational Research, 81(6), 354–359.

25.

Farenga

S. J.

Joyce

B. A.

(1999). Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses in the future: An examination of gender differences. Science Education, 83(1), 55–75.

26.

Gartland

(2014). Student ambassadors: “Role-models,” learning practices and identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(8), 1192–1211.

27.

George-Jackson

(2011). STEM switching: Examining departures of undergraduate women in STEM fields. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17(2), 149–171.

28.

George-Jackson

C. E.

(2014). Undergraduate women’s persistence in the sciences. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 7(1), 96–119.

29.

Handley

I. M.

Brown

E. R.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Smith

J. L.

(2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in sciences is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(43), 13201–13206.

30.

Heilman

M. E.

Wallen

A. S.

Fuchs

Tamkins

M. M.

(2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427.

31.

Hill

Corbett

St. Rose

(2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.

32.

Hirsch

L. S.

Berliner-Heyman

Cano

Kimmel

Carpinelli

(2011, October). Middle school girls’ perceptions of engineers before and after a female only summer enrichment program. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.

33.

Ingels

S. J.

Pratt

D. J.

Wilson

Burns

L. J.

Currivan

Rogers

J. E.

Hubbard-Bednasz

(2007). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002: Base-year to second follow-up data file documentation (NCES 2008-347). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

34.

Köller

Baumert

Schnabel

(2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 448–470.

35.

Leslie

S. J.

Cimpian

Meyer

Freeland

(2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265.

36.

(2011). Gender differences in the paths leading to a STEM baccalaureate. Social Science Quarterly, 92(5), 1169–1190.

37.

Maltese

A. V.

Tai

R. H.

(2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669–685.

38.

Maltese

A. V.

Tai

R. H.

(2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.

39.

Mann

DiPrete

T. A.

(2013). Trends in gender segregation in the choice of science and engineering majors. Social Science Research, 42(6), 1519–1541.

40.

Moakler

M. W.

Kim

M. M.

(2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128–142.

41.

Montmarquette

Cannings

Mahseredjian

(2002). How do young people choose college majors? Economics of Education Review, 21(6), 543–556.

42.

Mood

(2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.

43.

Morgan

Isaac

J. D.

Sansone

(2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44(5/6), 295–320.

44.

Morgan

S. L.

Gelbgiser

Weeden

K. A.

(2013). Feeding the pipeline: Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science Research, 42(4), 989–1005.

45.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

46.

National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

47.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2013menu_tables.asp

48.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf

49.

National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033/

50.

National Science Foundation. (2014). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013 (Special Report NSF 13-304). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

51.

National Strategic Review of Mathematical Sciences Research in Australia. (2006). Mathematics and statistics: Critical skills for Australia’s future. Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science.

52.

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. (2010). Women in science and engineering in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Women_Science_Engineering_e.pdf

53.

Paik

Shim

(2013). Tracking and college major choices in academic high schools in South Korea. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 721–730.

54.

Perez-Felkner

McDonald

S. K.

Schneider

Grogan

(2012). Female and male adolescents’ subjective orientations to mathematics and the influence of those orientations on postsecondary majors. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1658–1673.

55.

Reardon

S. F.

Cheadle

J. E.

Robinson

J. P.

(2009). The effect of Catholic schooling on math and reading development in kindergarten through fifth grade. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 45–87.

56.

Riegle-Crumb

King

(2010). Questioning a White male advantage in STEM: Examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 656–664.

57.

Riegle-Crumb

King

Grodsky

Muller

(2012). The more things change, the more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry into STEM college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1048–1073.

58.

Rincon

George-Jackson

C. E.

(2016). Examining departmental climate for women in Engineering. Journal of College Student Development, 57(6), 742–747.

59.

Robinson

J. P.

Espelage

D. L.

(2012). Bullying explains only part of LGBTQ–heterosexual risk disparities: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 309–319.

60.

Robinson-Cimpian

J. P.

Lubienski

S. T.

Ganley

C. M.

Copur-Gencturk

(2014). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ mathematics proficiency may exacerbate early gender gaps in achievement. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1262–1281.

61.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.

62.

Ryan

(2012). Field of degree and earnings by selected employment characteristics: 2011. Washington, DC: American Community Survey Briefs.

63.

Steffens

M. C.

Jelenec

Noack

(2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 947–963.

64.

Stinebrickner

T. R.

Stinebrickner

(2011). Math or science? Using longitudinal expectations data to examine the process of choosing a college major (Working Paper No. 16869). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

65.

Subotnik

R. F.

Tai

R. H.

Rickoff

Almarode

(2009). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review, 32(1), 7–16.

66.

Turner

S. E.

Bowen

W. G.

(1999). Choice of major: The changing (unchanging) gender gap. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52(2), 289–313.

67.

Watt

H. M.

Hyde

J. S.

Petersen

Morris

Z. A.

Rozek

C. S.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2017). Mathematics—A critical filter for stem-related career choices? A longitudinal examination among Australian and US adolescents. Sex Roles, 77, 254–271.

68.

Watt

H. M.

Shapka

J. D.

Morris

Z. A.

Durik

A. M.

Keating

D. P.

Eccles

J. S.

(2012). Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1594–1611.

69.

Wiswall

Zafar

(2015). Determinants of college major choice: Identification using an information experiment. The Review of Economic Studies, 82(2), 791–824.

70.

Zafar

(2013). College major choice and the gender gap. The Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 545–595.

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

0.17 MB