Research in Higher Education

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 513–547 | Cite as

Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions

  • A. Christopher Strenta
  • Rogers Elliott
  • Russell Adair
  • Michael Matier
  • Jannah Scott


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.


Physical Science Grade Point Average Classroom Climate Science Major College Entrance Examination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adair, R. K. (1991). Using quantitative measures to predict persistence in the natural sciences.College and University 66: 73–79.Google Scholar
  2. Adelman, C. (1991)Women at Thirty-something: Paradoxes of Attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Brush, S. G. (1991). Women in science and engineering.American Scientist 79: 404–419.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Chipman, S. F., Krantz, D. H., and Silver, R. (1992). Mathematics anxiety and science careers among able college women.Psychological Science 3: 292–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. College Board (1988a)College-bound Seniors: 1988. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  12. College Board (1988b).1988 Advanced Placement Program: National Summary Reports. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  13. Constantinople, A., Comelius, R., and Gray, J. (1988). The chilly climate: Fact or artifact?Journal of Higher Education 59(5): 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.American Psychologist 10: 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Green, K. C. (1989). A profile of undergraduates in the sciences.American Scientist 77: 475–480.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Humphreys, S., and Freeland, R. (1992).Retention in Engineering: A Study of Freshman Cohorts. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  25. Kimball, M. M. (1989) A new perspective on women’s math achievement.Psychological Bulletin 105(2): 198–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krupnick, C. G. (1984) Sex differences in college teachers’ classroom talk., Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  27. Levin, J., and Wyckoff, J. (1988). Effective advising: Identifying students most likely to persist and succeed in engineering.Engineering Education 78: 178–182.Google Scholar
  28. Light, R. J. (1990).Explorations with Students and Faculty About Teaching, Learning, and Student Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. McCornack, R. L., and McLeod, M. M. (1988). Gender bias in the prediction of college course performance.Journal of Educational Measurement 25: 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Science Foundation (1990).Future Scarcities of Scientists and Engineers: Problems and Solutions. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  34. Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority studients in science and mathematics.Review of Research in Higher Education 16: 153–222.Google Scholar
  35. Ramist, L., Lewis, C., and McCamley, L. (1992).Student Group Differences in Predicting College Grades. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  36. Sabot, R., and Wakeman-Linn, J. (1991). Grade inflation and course choice.Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 159–170.Google Scholar
  37. Sternglanz, S.H., and Lyberger-Ficek, S. (1977). Sex differences in student teacher interaction in the college classroom.Sex Roles 3: 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strenta, A. C. and Elliott, R. (1987). Differential grading standards revisited.Journal of Educational Measurement 24: 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Tobias, S. (1990).They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Ware, N. C., Steckler, N. A., and Leserman, J. (1985). Undergraduate women: Who chooses a science major?Journal of Higher Education 56: 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. White, P. E. (1992).Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering: An Update. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Widnall, S. E. (1988). AAAS presidential lecture: Voices from the pipeline.Science 241: 1740–1745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Willingham, W. W., (1985).Success in College: The Role of Personal Qualities and Academic Ability. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Christopher Strenta
    • 1
  • Rogers Elliott
    • 1
  • Russell Adair
    • 2
  • Michael Matier
    • 3
  • Jannah Scott
    • 4
  1. 1.Dartmouth CollegeHanover
  2. 2.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  4. 4.Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations