Abstract
Throughout this book, we seek to answer a number of related questions: What are the rates of loss from STEM majors, which students leave, why, when, and how do they leave, and with what consequences, where do they go, and what enables those who stay to persist? In answering these questions, we also discuss what has, and has not, changed since the original study, both in the extent of persistence, loss, and relocation from undergraduate STEM majors, and in what contributes to these patterns. We also comment on what we might have previously overlooked, and what new issues have emerged in the socio-economic context in which higher education now operates. In this final chapter, we summarize our answers to these questions and discuss their implications.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Andrews, G. J. (1997). Workshop evaluation: Old myths and new wisdom. In J. A. Fleming (Ed.), New perspectives on designing and implementing effective workshops (pp. 71–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau4734. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau473
Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001). National Center for Education Statistics.
Connolly, M. R., & Millar, S. B. (2006). Using educational workshops to improve instruction in STEM courses. Metropolitan Universities, 17(4), 53–65.
Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000138
Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.
Eagan, K., Hurtado, S., Figueroa, T., & Hughes, B. E. (2014). Examining STEM pathways among students who begin college at four-year institutions. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One, 11(7), e0157447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447
Ferrare, J. J. (2019). A multi-institutional analysis of instructional beliefs and practices in gateway courses to the sciences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar26.
Ferrare, J. J., & Miller, J. (2019). Making sense of persistence in scientific purgatory: A multi-institutional analysis of instructors in introductory STEM courses. The Journal of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1602392
Hilsen, L. R., & Wadsworth, E. C. (2002). Staging successful workshops. In K. H. Gillespie (Ed.), A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Lee, Y.-G., & Ferrare, J. J. (2019). Finding one’s place or losing the race? The consequences of STEM departure for college dropout and degree completion. The Review of Higher Education, 43(1), 221–261.
Rask, K. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 892–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.013
Ruane, I. W. (2012, July–August). Effortless perfection. The Undergraduate. Harvard Magazine, 55–56. Retrieved from http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/effortless-perfection
Seymour, E. (2001). Tracking the process of change in U.S. undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 86, 79–105.
Seymour, E., Melton, G., Pedersen-Gallegos, L., & Wiese, D. J. (2005). Partners in Innovation: Teaching assistants in college science courses. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.
Seymour, E., & DeWelde, C. (2016). Why doesn’t knowing change anything? Constraints and resistance, leverage and sustainability. In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress, & L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.
Seymour, E., & Fry, C. F. (2016). The reformers’ tale: Determining progress in improving undergraduate STEM education. In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress, & L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.
Travers, L. V., Randall, E. T., Bryant, F. B., Conley, C. S., & Bohnert, A. M. (2015). The cost of perfection with apparent ease: Theoretical foundations and development of the effortless perfectionism scale. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication., 27(4), 1147–1159. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000109
Weaver, G. C., Burgess, W. D., Childress, A. L., & Slakey, L. (2016). Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.
Yee, C. (2003, September 23). Committee unveils Women’s Initiative report. The Chronicle. Retrieved from http://dukechronicle.com/article/committee-unveils-womens-initiative-report
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seymour, E. (2019). Then and Now: Summary and Implications. In: Seymour, E., Hunter, AB. (eds) Talking about Leaving Revisited. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25303-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25304-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)