This article uses data from the U.S. High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 to investigate the relationship between high school students’ beliefs about female abilities in math and science and their teacher gender, beliefs, and classroom behaviors. Estimates are obtained by comparing the same ninth graders between math and science classes, thus controlling for student fixed effects. Students were less likely to believe that men were better than women in math or science when assigned to female teachers or to teachers who valued and listened to ideas from their students. The empirical analysis also provides evidence suggesting that these gender beliefs were related to the decisions by female students to take advanced math and science classes in high school.
AltonjiJ. G.ArcidiaconoP.MaurelA. (2016). The analysis of field choice in college and graduate school: Determinants and wage effects. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 5, 305–396.
2.
AltonjiJ. G.ElderT. E.TaberC. R. (2005). An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of Catholic schools. Journal of Human Resources, 40, 791–821.
3.
AntecolH.OzkanE.SerkanO. (2015). The effect of teacher gender on student achievement in primary school: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(1), 63–89.
BeamanL.DufloE.PandeR.TopalovaP. (2012). Female leadership raises aspirations and educational attainment for girls: A policy experiment in India. Science Magazine, 335, 582–586.
6.
BettingerE. P.LongB. T. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95, 152–157.
7.
BottiaM. C.StearnsE.MickelsonR. A.MollerS.ValentinoL. (2015). Growing the roots of STEM majors: Female math and science high school faculty and the participation of students in STEM. Economics of Education Review, 45, 14–27.
8.
CarnevaleA. P.SmithN.MeltonM. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
9.
CarnieroP.HeckmanJ. J. (2003). Human capital policy. In HeckmanJ. J.KruegerA. B. (Eds.), Inequality in America: What role for human capital policy? (pp. 77–240). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
CarrellS. E.PageM. E.WestJ. E. (2010). Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 1101–1144.
11.
CeciS. J.GintherD. K.KahnS.WilliamsW. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 75–141.
12.
ChenX. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
13.
CoateS.LouryC. G. (1993). Will affirmative-action policies eliminate negative stereotypes?American Economic Review, 83, 1220–1240.
14.
CookP. J.DodgeK.FarkasG.FryerR. G.Jr.GuryanJ.LudwigJ.. . . SteinbergL. (2014, January). The (surprising) efficacy of academic and behavioral intervention with disadvantaged youth: Results from a randomized experiment in Chicago (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 19862). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
15.
CorbettC.HillC. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
16.
CortesK. E.GoodmanJ. S.NomiT. (2015). Intensive math instruction and educational attainment: Long-run impacts of double-dose algebra. Journal of Human Resources, 50, 108–158.
17.
DeeT. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter?American Economic Review, 95, 158–165.
18.
DeeT. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 42, 528–554.
19.
EgaliteA. J.KisidaB. (2018). The effects of teacher match on students’ academic perceptions and attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40, 59–81.
20.
Executive Office of the President. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
21.
FairlieR.HoffmannF.OreopoulosP. (2014). A community college instructor like me: Race and ethnicity interaction in the classroom. American Economic Review, 104, 2567–2591.
22.
FryerR. G.Jr. (2017). The production of human capital in developed countries: Evidence from 196 randomized field experiments. In DufloE.BanerjeeA. (Eds.), Handbook of field experiments (pp. 95–322). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing.
23.
FryerR. G.Jr.LevittS. D. (2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 210–240.
24.
GershensonS.HartC. M. D.LindsayC. A.PapageorgeN. W. (2017, March). The long-run impacts of same-race teachers (IZA Discussion Paper No. 10630). Bonn, Germany: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics.
25.
GershensonS.HoltS. B.PapageorgeN. W. (2016). Who believes in me? The effect of student-teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. Economics of Education Review, 52, 209–224.
26.
GoldinC. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review, 104, 1091–1119.
GuisoL.MonteF.SapienzaP.ZingalesL. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science Magazine, 320, 1164–1165.
29.
HoffmannF.OreopoulosP. (2009). A professor like me: The influence of instructor gender on college achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 44, 479–494.
30.
HolmlundH.SundK. (2008). Is the gender gap in school performance affected by the sex of the teacher?Labour Economics, 15, 37–53.
31.
HydeJ. S.LindbergS. M.LinnM. C.EllisA. B.WilliamsC. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science Magazine, 321, 494–495.
32.
IngelsS. J.PrattD. J.HergetD. R.BryanM.FritchL. B.OttemR.WilsonD. (2015). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) 2013 update and high school transcript data file documentation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
33.
IngelsS. J.PrattD. J.HergetD. R.BurnsL. J.DeverJ. A.OttemR.LeinwandS. (2011). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) base-year data file documentation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
34.
IngelsS. J.PrattD. J.HergetD. R.DeverJ. A.FritchL. B.OttemR.LeinwandS. (2014). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) base year to first follow-up data file documentation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
35.
JoelD.BermanZ.TavorI.WexlerN.GaberO.SteinY.. . . AssafY. (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 15468–15473.
36.
KramerN. C.KaracoraB.LucasG.DehghaniM.RutherG.GratchJ. (2016). Closing the gender gap in STEM with friendly male instructors? On the effects of rapport behavior and gender of a virtual agent in an instructional interaction. Computers & Education, 99, 1–13.
37.
LeslieS. J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science Magazine, 347, 23–34.
38.
MuralidharanK.ShethK. (2016). Bridging education gender gaps in developing countries: The role of female teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 51, 269–297.
39.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress 2012. Author. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Science Board. (2014). Science & engineering indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
43.
National Science Foundation. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences.
44.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education (PISA). Paris, France: Author.
45.
OsterE. (2017). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711.
46.
PageS. E. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
PapageorgeN. W.GershensonS.KangK. (2016, August). Teacher expectations matter (IZA Discussion Papers 10165). Bonn, Germany: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics.
48.
ParedesV. (2014). A teacher like me or a student like me? Role model versus teacher bias effect. Economics of Education Review, 39, 38–49.
49.
PattersonB.KobrinJ. (2012). The SAT and SAT subject tests: Discrepant scores and incremental validity. New York City, NY: College Board.
50.
PeracchiF.RossettiC. (2012). Heterogeneity in health responses and anchoring vignettes. Empirical Economics, 42, 513–538.
PriceJ. (2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29, 901–910.
53.
ReubenE.SapienzaP.ZingalesL. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 4403–4408.
54.
Rodriguez-PlanasN. (2012). Longer-term impacts of mentoring, educational services, and learning incentives: Evidence from a randomized trial in the United States. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4, 121–139.
55.
SabotR.Wakeman-LinnJ. (1991). Grade inflation and course choice. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 159–170.
56.
SansoneD. (2017). Why does teacher gender matter?Economics of Education Review, 61, 9–18.
57.
Scott-ClaytonJ.MinayaV. (2016). Should student employment be subsidized? Conditional counterfactuals and the outcomes of work-study participation. Economics of Education Review, 52, 1–18.
58.
SolonG.HaiderS. J.WooldridgeJ. M. (2015). What are we weighting for?Journal of Human Resources, 50, 301–316.
59.
SpeerJ. D. (2017). The gender gap in college major: Revisiting the role of pre-college factors. Labour Economics, 44, 69–88.
60.
SpelkeE. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950–958.
TurnerS. E.BowenW. G. (1999). Choice of major: The changing (unchanging) gender gap. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52, 289–313.
63.
WeinbergerC. J.LeggonC. B. (2004). Just ask! Why surveyed women did not pursue IT courses or careers. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 23, 28–35.
64.
WintersM. A.HaightR. C.SwaimT. T.PickeringK. A. (2013). The effect of same-gender teacher assignment on student achievement in the elementary and secondary grades: Evidence from panel data. Economics of Education Review, 34, 69–75.
65.
WoolleyA. W.ChabrisC. F.PentlandA.HashmiN.MaloneT. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science Magazine, 330, 686–688.
66.
ZafarB. (2013). College major choice and the gender gap. Journal of Human Resources, 48, 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.
