Skip to main content

Women in STEM: does college boost their performance?

Abstract

This article uses an added value measure to assess the gender-specific impact of attending a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) program. Using the results of the mandatory Colombian national exit exams, we compare the math and reading scores at the end of high school and at the end of college by gender. A difference-in-differences technique combined with propensity score matching is used to address selection bias. We find that the gender-related achievement gap in math and reading scores increases after college affecting women. The gap is larger for those individuals studying a STEM major in comparison with a non-STEM major. Moreover, we find that the gender gap is higher in public and accredited universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a comprehensive review of the literature on gender and academic choice refer to Yazilitas et al. (2013), Clark Blickenstaff and Blickenstaff (2005), Galeshi (2013) and Castillo and Montes-Berges (2014)

  2. 2.

    Law 3963 of 2009, enacted by Colombian Ministry of Education.

  3. 3.

    Technical and technological programs are different from professional programs in terms of duration and learning goals. The first having a duration between 1.5 to 3 years whereas professionals between 4 to 6. Moreover, technical and technological programs are mainly offered by technical institutions instead of universities and they emphasis in applications more than theory and research.

  4. 4.

    For a comprehensive review of value-added models, including its benefits and limitations, please refer to Koedel et al. (2015).

  5. 5.

    van de Walle and Mu (2007) use this approach to estimate the impact of rural road rehabilitation on market development at the commune level in rural Vietnam.

References

  1. Abadía, L. K. (2017). Gender score gap of Colombian students in the pisa test. Vniversitas Economicas, 17(8).

  2. Abadía, L. K., & Bernal, G. (2017). A widening gap? A gender-based analysis of performance on the Colombian high school exit examination. Revista de Economía del Rosario, 20(1), 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Calderwood, C. (2013). High school advanced placement and student performance in college: STEM majors, non-STEM majors, and gender differences. Teachers College Record, 115(10), 100305.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ayalon, H. (2003). Women and men go to university: mathematical background and gender differences in choice of field in higher education. Sex Roles, 48(5–6), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022829522556.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Balcazar, C. F., & Ñopo, H. (2016). Broken gears: the value added of higher education on teachers’ academic achievement. Higher Education, 72(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9960-0.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baldiga, K. (2013). Gender differences in willingness to guess. Management Science, 60(2), 434–448.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: a gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief, 04–11.

  8. Bielby, R., Posselt, J. R., Jaquette, O., & Bastedo, M. N. (2014). Why are women underrepresented in elite colleges and universities? A non-linear decomposition analysis. Research in Higher Education, 55(8), 735–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9334-y.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, J. L., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (2015). Relationship between high school mathematical achievement and quantitative GPA. Higher Education Studies, 5(6), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n6p1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Buschor, C. B., Berweger, S., Frei, A. K., & Kappler, C. (2014). Majoring in STEM-what accounts for women’s career decision making? A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.788989.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2005). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. In IZA Discussion Paper No. 1588. Bonn: The Institute for the Study of Labor.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carrell, S. E., Page, M. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Sex and science: how professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1101–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Castillo, R., & Montes-Berges, B. (2014). Analysis of current gender stereotypes. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1044–1060. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.138981.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clark Blickenstaff, J., & Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Coffman, K. B., & Klinowski, D. (2018). The impact of penalties for wrong answers on the gender gap in test scores. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cunha, J. M., & Miller, T. (2014). Measuring value-added in higher education: possibilities and limitations in the use of administrative data. Economics of Education Review, 42, 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Galeshi, R. (2013). Women and nontraditional fields: a comprehensive review. Journal of Sustainability Education, 4(January), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science, 320(5880), 1164–1165.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Haemmerlie, F. M., & Montgomery, R. L. (2012). Gender differences in the academic performance and retention of undergraduate engineering majors. College Student Journal, 46(1), 40–45. Retrieved May 15, 2018 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=73951015&site=ehost-live.

  21. Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica, 71(4), 1161–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00442.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in college science and engineering education. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2(3), 59–60.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Joensen, J. S., & Nielsen, H. S. (2009). Is there a causal effect of high school math on labor market outcomes? Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 171–198.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B., & Samad, H. A. (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices. Washington, D.C: World Bank Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Klasen, S., & Lamanna, F. (2009). The impact of gender inequality in education and employment on economic growth: new evidence for a panel of countries. Feminist Economics, 15(3), 91–132.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Koedel, C., Mihaly, K., Rockoff, J. (2015). Value-added modeling: A review. Economics of Education Review, 47, 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.006.

  27. Kokkelenberg, E. C., & Sinha, E. (2010). Who succeeds in STEM studies? An analysis of Binghamton University undergraduate students. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 935–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.016.

    Google Scholar 

  28. MacLeod, W. B., Riehl, E., Saavedra, J. E., & Urquiola, M. (2017). The big sort: college reputation and labor market outcomes. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(3), 223–261.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mann, A., & DiPrete, T. A. (2013). Trends in gender segregation in the choice of science and engineering majors. Social Science Research, 42(6), 1519–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.002.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Morales Valera, R. M., & Sifontes, D. A. (2014). Las patentes como resultado de la cooperación en I+ D en América Latina: Hechos y desafíos. Investigación & Desarrollo, 22, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Niederle and Vesterlun. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

  32. OECD. (2016). Reviews of National Policies for education: Colombia. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264250604-en.

    Google Scholar 

  33. OECD. (2017a). The pursuit of gender equality: an uphill battle. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-en.

    Google Scholar 

  34. OECD. (2017b). 2013 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279391-en.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sax, L. J., Allison Kanny, M., Jacobs, J. A., Whang, H., Weintraub, D. S., & Hroch, A. (2016). Understanding the changing dynamics of the gender gap in undergraduate engineering majors: 1971-2011. Research in Higher Education, 57(5), 570–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9396-5.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schiebinger, L., Klinge, I., Sánchez de Madariaga, I., Paik, H., Schraudner, M., & Stefanick, M. (2014). Gendered innovations in science, health and medicine, engineering, and environment (pp. 2011–2013).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schrøter, J. J., & Nielsen, H. S. (2013). Math and gender: is math a route to a high-powered career? IZA DP No. 7164. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from http://ftp.iza.org/dp7164.pdf.

  38. Shapiro, C. A., & Sax, L. J. (2011). Major selection and persistence for women in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(152), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thévenon, O., Ali, N., Adema, W., & del Pero, A. S. (2012). Effects of reducing gender gaps in education and labour force participation on economic growth in the OECD. OECD iLibrary. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k8xb722w928-en.

  40. Turner, S. E., & Bowen, W. G. (1999). Choice of major: the changing (inchanging) gender gap. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52(2), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525167.

    Google Scholar 

  41. UNESCO. (2015). Women in science. Retrieved April 25, 2018 fromhttp://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/women-in-science/.

  42. UNESCO. (2017). Cracking the code: girls’ and women’s education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Retrieved April 25, 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002534/253479e.pdf.

  43. van de Walle, D., & Mu, R. (2007). Fungibility and the flypaper effect of project aid: Micro-evidence for Vietnam. Journal of Development Economics, 84, 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.12.005.

  44. Van Langen, A., Bosker, R., & Dekkers, H. (2006). Exploring cross-national differences in gender gaps in education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(02), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600587016.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213488622.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yazilitas, D., Saharso, S., de Vries, G., & Svensson, J. (2013). Gendered study choice: a literature review. A review of theory and research into the unequal representation of male and female students in mathematics, science, and technology. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(6), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.803931.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zafar, B. (2013). College major choice and the gender gap. Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 545–595. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2013.0022.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Hugo Ñopo (GRADE) and the seminar participants at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana for their very valuable comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Jorge Lagos for his work as a research assistant during this project.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Instituto Colombiano para la Evaluación (ICFES).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia C. Gomez Soler.

Ethics declarations

Disclaimer

The analysis, views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of ICFES.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 248 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gomez Soler, S.C., Abadía Alvarado, L.K. & Bernal Nisperuza, G.L. Women in STEM: does college boost their performance?. High Educ 79, 849–866 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00441-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Exit exams
  • STEM
  • Value-added
  • Gender differences