Advertisement

Racial and Ethnic Heterogeneity in the Effect of MESA on AP STEM Coursework and College STEM Major Aspirations

  • Steven Elías Alvarado
  • Paul Muniz
Article

Abstract

Previous research suggests that racial and ethnic disparities in postsecondary STEM outcomes are rooted much earlier in the educational pipeline. One possible remedy to these disparities is participation in early STEM enrichment programs. We examine the impact of MESA, which is an early program that targets socioeconomically disadvantaged students, on outcomes that may lead students down the path to STEM. We analyze three waves of restricted nationally-representative data from the High School Longitudinal Study that trace the STEM progress of more than 25,000 students throughout high school and into their postsecondary careers. Propensity score matching models reveal that MESA participation increases students’ odds of taking AP STEM courses in high school and their aspirations for declaring a STEM major in college. However, these effects are driven primarily by black and white students, respectively. Latino and Asian students remain largely unaffected. A formal sensitivity analysis concludes that these findings are moderately robust to unobserved confounding. The results are also robust to alternative matching schemes. Collectively, the findings suggest that MESA may improve black students’ high school STEM engagement but may have little impact on black and Latino students’ STEM outcomes in college.

Keywords

STEM AP coursework STEM aspirations/expectations Propensity score matching 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their undergraduate research assistant, Summer Lopez Colorado, for her work on developing this paper, Dr. Anna R. Haskins and Clara M. Elpi for their careful reviews of the manuscript, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. In addition, the authors thank seminar participants at the Cornell Center for the Study of Inequality for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

11162_2018_9493_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (606 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 605 kb)

References

  1. Adams, S. (2014). The best jobs for 2014. New York: Forbes.Google Scholar
  2. Afterschool Alliance. (2011). STEM learning in afterschool: an analysis of impact and outcomes. Washington, DC: Afterschool Alliance.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, P. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arpino, B., & Mealli, F. (2008). The specification of the propensity score in multilvel observational studies. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 55, 1770–1780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., et al. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistic.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. STATA Journal, 2, 358–377.Google Scholar
  7. Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., Moller, S., & Parker, A. D. (2015). The relationships among high school STEM learning experiences and students’ intent to declare and declaration of a STEM major in college. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–46.Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2012. BLS Reports.Google Scholar
  9. Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science-education in the middle grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chemers, M., Zurbriggen, E., Syed, M., Goza, B., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. In Stats in Brief (NCES 2009-161). National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  13. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  14. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crosnoe, R., & Schneider, B. (2010). Social capital, information, and socioeconomic disparities in math course work. The American Journal of Education, 117, 79–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Agostino, R. B. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265–2281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalton, B., Ingels, S. J., Downing, J., Bozick, R., & Owings, J. (2007). Advanced mathematics and science coursetaking in the spring high school senior classes of 1982, 1992, and 2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  18. Davidson, A. (2012). Making it in America. Boston, MA: The Atlantic.Google Scholar
  19. Dehejia, R. (2005). Practical propensity score matching: A reply to Smith and Todd. Journal of Economic Theory, 125, 355–364.Google Scholar
  20. DiPrete, T. A., & Gangl, M. (2004). Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments (pp. 271–310). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag Gmbh.Google Scholar
  21. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 65, 261–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewson, P. W., Kahle, J. B., Scantlebury, K., & Davies, D. (2001). Equitable science education in urban middle schools: Do reform efforts make a difference?*. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1130–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinojosa, T., Rapaport, A., Jaciw, A., LiCalsi, C., & Zacamy, J. (2016). Exploring the foundations of the future STEM workforce: K–12 indicators of postsecondary STEM success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.Google Scholar
  25. Hoepner, C. C. (2010). Advanced placement math and science courses: Influential factors and predictors for success in college STEM majors. Proquest Dissertation Publication.Google Scholar
  26. Ichino, A., Mealli, F., & Nannicini, T. (2008). From temporary help jobs to permanent employment: What can we learn from matching estimators and their sensitivity? Journal of Applied Economics, 23, 305–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson, S. A. (2003). The quiet crisis: Falling short in producing american scientific and technical talent. San Diego: Building Engineering & Science Talent (BEST).Google Scholar
  28. Kaushal, N., Magnuson, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). How is family income related to investments in children’s schooling. In G. J. Duncan, & R. J. Murnane (Eds.) (pp. 187–205). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Kelly, S. (2009). The black–white gap in mathematics course taking. Sociology of Education, 82, 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelly, S., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Teacher support and engagement in math and science: Evidence from the high school longitudinal study. High School Journal, 99, 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, C., Tamborini, C. R., & Sakamoto, A. (2015). Field of study in college and lifetime earnings in the United States. Sociology of Education, 88, 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2014). The high school environment and the gender gap in science and engineering. Sociology of Education, 87, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leggon, C. B., & Pearson, W. (2006). Assessing programs to improve minority participation in STEM fields: What we know and what we need to know. In R. Ehrenberg, & C. V. Kuh (Eds.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing.Google Scholar
  35. Lewis, J., Menzies, H., Najera, E., & Page, R. (2009). Rethinking trends in minority participation in the sciences. Science & Education, 93, 961–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Moakler, M. W., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. Career Development Quarterly, 62, 128–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morgan, S. L. (1996). Trends in black–white differences in educational expectations: 1980–1992. Sociology of Education, 69, 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morgan, S. L., & Harding, D. J. (2006). Matching estimators of causal effects—Prospects and pitfalls in theory and practice. Sociological Methods & Research, 35, 3–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2014). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muller, P., Stage, F. K., & Kinzie, J. (2001). Science achievement growth trajectories: Understanding factors related to gender and racial-ethnic differences in precollege science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 981–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. NSF. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014. National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01).Google Scholar
  43. NSF and NCSES. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice—Women and minority-students in science and mathematics (p. 16). Educ: Review of Research in Education.Google Scholar
  45. Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E., Ee, J., & Kuscera, J. (2014). Brown at 60: Great progress, a long retreat and an uncertain future.Google Scholar
  46. Ormerod, M. B., & Duckworth, D. (1975). Pupils’ attitudes to science. Slough: NFER.Google Scholar
  47. Owens, J., & Massey, D. S. (2011). Stereotype threat and college academic performance: A latent variables approach. Social Science Research, 40, 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Press, W. H. (2013). What’s so special about science (and how much should we spend on it?). Science, 342, 817–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., & Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights from TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and science achievement of US fourth-and eighth-grade students in an international context. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  50. Rakow, S. J., & Walker, C. L. (1985). The status of Hispanic American-students in science—Achievement and exposure. Science & Education, 69, 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riegle-Crumb, C., Farkas, G., & Muller, C. (2006). The role of gender and friendship in advanced course taking. Sociology of Education, 79, 206–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Riegle-Crumb, C., & Grodsky, E. (2010). Racial-ethnic differences at the intersection of math course-taking and achievement. Sociology of Education, 83, 248–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenbaum, P. (2002). Observational studies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosenbaum, J. E., & Harris, L. E. (2001). Low-income families in their new neighborhoods. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. B. (1983a). Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 45, 212–218.Google Scholar
  56. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. B. (1983b). The Central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.Google Scholar
  58. Royal Society. (2006). Taking a leading role—scientists survey. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  59. Rubin, D. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rubin, D. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. Annals of Statistics, 6, 34–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rubin, D. (1980). Discussion of “randomization analysis of experimental data in the fisher randomization test” by Basu. Journal of American Statistical Association, 75, 591–593.Google Scholar
  62. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  63. Simpkins, S. D., Price, C. D., & Garcia, K. (2015). Parental support and high school students’ motivation in biology, chemistry, and physics: Understanding differences among latino and caucasian boys and girls. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1386–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A Summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science & Education, 74, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stake, J. E., & Mares, K. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1065–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Staniec, J. F. O. (2004). The effects of race, sex, and expected returns on the choice of college major. Eastern Economic Journal, 30, 549–562.Google Scholar
  67. Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stuart, E., & Rubin, D. B. (2008). Best practices in quasi-experimental designs: Matching methods for causal inference. In J. Osborne (Ed.) (pp. 155–176). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Summers, M. F., & Hrabowski, F. A. (2006). Preparing minority scientists and engineers. Institutions, 17, 18.Google Scholar
  70. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. T. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. von Hippel, P. T. (2007). Regression with missing Y’s: An improved strategy for analyzing multiply imputed data. Sociological Methodology, 37, 83–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walker, C. L., & Rakow, S. J. (1985). The status of Hispanic American-students in Science—attitudes. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 7, 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM Majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1081–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xie, Y., & Killewald, A. (2012). Is American Science in Decline?. Cambridge: Cambridge Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yoder, B. L. (2012). Engineering by the Numbers. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.Google Scholar
  79. Yonezawa, S., Wells, A. S., & Serna, I. (2002). Choosing tracks:“Freedom of Choice” in detracking schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhou, X. (2005). The institutional logic of occupational prestige ranking: Reconceptualization and reanalyses. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 90–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations