Abstract
This study sought to discover some of the causes of initial interset in and atrition from the natural sciences and engineering among the students (N=5320) who entered four highly selective institutions in 1988, with particular attention to possible special causes for the disproportionate attrition of women from science. Though a smaller proportion of women (35 percent) than men (49 percent) were initially interested in science, gender added little to the prediction of such initial choice when preadmission measures of developed abilities were taken into account in regression analysis. Of the group of 2,276 students initially interested in science, 40 percent did not finally concentrate in science, and smaller proportions of women (48 percent) than of men (66 percent) persisted. The most significant cognitive, factor predicting these losses was low grades earned in science courses taken during the first two years of study. With grades held equal, gender was not a significant predictor of persistence in engineering and biology; gender added strongly to grades, however, as a factor associated with unusually large losses of women from a category that included the physical sciences and mathematics. Responses to a questionnaire administered in the fall of 1991 showed that science majors regarded their instruction as too competitive, with too few opportunities to ask questions, taught by professors who were relatively unresponsive, not dedicated, and not motivating. Students who defected from science did so largely because of the attraction of other fields, but many shared the criticism of overcompetitiveness and inferior instruction, along with the view that the work was too difficult. Several items were about elements of classroom instruction and atmosphere thought to be especially difficult for women (i.e., the chilly climate), but except for perceived competitiveness, women did not rate their classroom experiences as being more unpleasant than did men.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adair, R. K. (1991). Using quantitative measures to predict persistence in the natural sciences.College and University 66: 73–79.
Adelman, C. (1991)Women at Thirty-something: Paradoxes of Attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Research and Development.
Astin, A. W., and Astin, H. S. (1993)Undergraduate Science Education: The Impact of Different College Environments on the Educational Pipeline in the Sciences, Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Benbow, C. P., and Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study.Journal of Educational Psychology 82(3): 430–441.
Berryman, S. E. (1983).Who Will Do Science? Trends, and their Causes, in Minority and Female Representation Among Holders of Advanced Degrees in Science and Mathematics. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.
Boli, J., Allen, M. L. and Payne, A. (1985). High-ability women and men in under-graduate mathematics and chemistry courses.American Educational Research Journal 22: 605–626.
Bridgeman, B., and Wendler, C. (1989).Prediction of Grades in College Mathematics Courses as a Component of the Placement Validity of SAT-Mathematics Scores (College Board Report 88-9). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Brush, S. G. (1991). Women in science and engineering.American Scientist 79: 404–419.
Chipman, S. F. and Thomas, V. G. (1987). The participation of women and minorities in mathematical, scientific, and technical fields.Review of Research in Higher Education 14: 387–430.
Chipman, S. F., Krantz, D. H., and Silver, R. (1992). Mathematics anxiety and science careers among able college women.Psychological Science 3: 292–295.
College Board (1988a)College-bound Seniors: 1988. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
College Board (1988b).1988 Advanced Placement Program: National Summary Reports. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Constantinople, A., Comelius, R., and Gray, J. (1988). The chilly climate: Fact or artifact?Journal of Higher Education 59(5): 527–550.
DeBoer, G. (1984). A study of gender effects in science and mathematics course-taking behavior among students who graduated from college in the late 1970s.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21: 95–103.
Dorans, N. J., and Livingston, S. A. (1987). Male-female differences in SAT-verbal ability among students of high SAT-mathematical ability.Journal of Educational Measurement 24(1): 65–71.
Dunteman, G. H., Wisenbaker, J., and Taylor, M. E. (1979)Race and Sex Differences in College Science Program Participation. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.American Psychologist 10: 1040–1048.
Elliott, R., and Strenta, A. C. (1988). Effects of improving the reliability of the GPA on prediction generally and on comparative predictions for gender and race particularly.Journal of Educational Measurement, 25(4): 333–347.
Goldman, R. D., and Widawski, M. H. (1976). A within-subjects technique for comparing college grading standards: Implications in the, validity of the evaluation of college achievement.Educational and Psychological Measurement 36: 381–390.
Green, K. C. (1989). A profile of undergraduates in the sciences.American Scientist 77: 475–480.
Hall, R. M. and Sandler, B. (1982).The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? Project on the Status and Education of Women. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Heller, J. F., Puff, C. R., and Mills, C. J. (1985). Assessment of the chilly college climate for women.Journal of Higher Education 56(4): 446–461.
Hewitt, N. M. and Seymour, E. (1991).Factors Contributing to High Attrition Rates Among Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors. Report to The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Boulder, CO: Bureau of Sociological Research, University of Colorado.
Humphreys, S., and Freeland, R. (1992).Retention in Engineering: A Study of Freshman Cohorts. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
Kimball, M. M. (1989) A new perspective on women’s math achievement.Psychological Bulletin 105(2): 198–214.
Krupnick, C. G. (1984) Sex differences in college teachers’ classroom talk., Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Levin, J., and Wyckoff, J. (1988). Effective advising: Identifying students most likely to persist and succeed in engineering.Engineering Education 78: 178–182.
Light, R. J. (1990).Explorations with Students and Faculty About Teaching, Learning, and Student Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Lubinski, D., and Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline.Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(2): 61–66.
Manis, J. D., Thomas, N. G., Sloat, B. F., and Davis, C. (1989).An Analysis of Factors Affecting Choices of Majors in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering at the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for continuing Education of Women, University of Michigan.
Matyas, M. L. (1991). Women, men and persons with physical disabilities in science and engineering: Contributing factors and study methodology. In M. L. Matyas and S. M. Malcolm (eds.),Investing in Human Potential: Science and Engineering at the Crossroads (pp. 1–29). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
McCornack, R. L., and McLeod, M. M. (1988). Gender bias in the prediction of college course performance.Journal of Educational Measurement 25: 321–331.
National Science Foundation (1990).Future Scarcities of Scientists and Engineers: Problems and Solutions. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority studients in science and mathematics.Review of Research in Higher Education 16: 153–222.
Ramist, L., Lewis, C., and McCamley, L. (1992).Student Group Differences in Predicting College Grades. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Sabot, R., and Wakeman-Linn, J. (1991). Grade inflation and course choice.Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 159–170.
Sternglanz, S.H., and Lyberger-Ficek, S. (1977). Sex differences in student teacher interaction in the college classroom.Sex Roles 3: 345–351.
Strenta, A. C. and Elliott, R. (1987). Differential grading standards revisited.Journal of Educational Measurement 24: 281–291.
Stricker, L. J., Rock, D. A., and Burton, N. W. (1991).Sex Differences in SAT Predictions of College Grades (College Board Report No. 91-92). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Tobias, S. (1990).They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
Ware, N. C., and Dill, D. (1986).Persistence in Science Among Mathematically Able Male and Female College Students with Pre-college Plans for a Scientific Major. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Ware, N. C., Steckler, N. A., and Leserman, J. (1985). Undergraduate women: Who chooses a science major?Journal of Higher Education 56: 73–84.
White, P. E. (1992).Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering: An Update. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Widnall, S. E. (1988). AAAS presidential lecture: Voices from the pipeline.Science 241: 1740–1745.
Wilder, G. Z., and Powell, K. (1989).Sex Differences in Test Performance A Survey of the Literature (College Board Report No. 89-3). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Willingham, W. W., (1985).Success in College: The Role of Personal Qualities and Academic Ability. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Young, J. W. (1991). Gender bias in predicting college academic performance: A new approach using item response theory.Journal of Educational Measurement 28(1): 37–47.
Zappert, L. T., and Stansbury, K. (1984).In the Pipeline: A Comparative Analysis of Men and Women in Graduate Programs in Science, Engineering, and Medicine at Stanford University. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Stanford University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Science Foundation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Christopher Strenta, A., Elliott, R., Adair, R. et al. Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Res High Educ 35, 513–547 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497086
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497086