Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do They Stay or Do They Go? The Switching Decisions of Individuals Who Enter Gender Atypical College Majors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on prior theoretical and empirical research on gender segregation within educational fields as well as occupations, we examine the pathways of college students who at least initially embark on a gender-atypical path. Specifically, we explore whether women who enter fields that are male-dominated are more likely to switch fields than their female peers who have chosen other fields, as well as whether men who enter female-dominated majors are more likely to subsequently switch fields than their male peers who have chosen a more normative field. We utilize a sample of 3702 students from a nationally representative dataset on U.S. undergraduates, the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS 2004/09). Logistic regression models examine the likelihood that students switch majors, controlling for students’ social and academic background. Results reveal different patterns for men and women. Men who enter a female-dominated major are significantly more likely to switch majors than their male peers in other majors. By contrast, women in male-dominated fields are not more likely to switch fields compared to their female peers in other fields. The results are robust to supplementary analyses that include alternative specifications of the independent and dependent variables. The implications of our findings for the maintenance of gendered occupational segregation are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alon, S., & Gelbgiser, D. (2011). The female advantage in college academic achievements and horizontal sex segregation. Social Science Research, 40(1), 107–119. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, M. L. (2005). Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender and Society, 19, 437–455. doi:10.1177/0891243205276756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). The condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013–037). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

  • Baird, C. L. (2012). Going against the flow: A longitudinal study of the effects of cognitive skills and gender beliefs on occupational aspirations and outcomes. Sociological Forum, 27, 986–1009. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01365.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, L. L. B., Bull, K. S., Campbell, J., & Perry, K. M. (2001). Effects of academic discipline and teaching goals in predicting grading beliefs among undergraduate teaching faculty. Research in Higher Education, 42(4), 455–467. doi:10.1023/A:1011006909774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2006). The U.S. gender pay gap in the 1990s: Slowing convergence. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 60(1), 45–66. doi:10.1177/001979390606000103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosson, J. K., Taylor, J. N., & Prewitt-Freilino, J. L. (2006). Gender role violations and identity misclassification: The roles of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles, 55, 3–24. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9065-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchmann, C., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 515–541. doi:10.1177/000312240607100401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budig, M. J. (2002). Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: Who rides the glass escalator? Social Problems, 49(2), 258–277. doi:10.1525/sp.2002.49.2.258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, A. E., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equation modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123–139. doi:10.1037/a0026838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cech, E. A. (2013). Ideological wage inequalities? The technical/social dualism and the gender wage gap in engineering. Social Forces, 91(4), 1147–1182. doi:10.1093/sf/sot024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2002). Equal but separate? A cross-national study of sex segregation in higher education. American Sociological Review, 67, 573–599. doi:10.2307/3088946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014–001). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544470.pdf.

  • Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66, 184–190. doi:10.1007/x11199-011-0060-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognard-Black, A. J. (2004). Will they stay or will they go? Sex-atypical work among token men who teach. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 113–139. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02400.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(9), 829–859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113. doi:10.1177/000312240406900106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottingham, M. D., Erickson, R. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2013). The effects of manager exclusion on nurse turnover intention and care quality. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 35(8), 1–16. doi:10.1177/0193945913483880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiDonato, L., & Strough, J. (2013). Do college students’ gender-typed attitudes about occupations predict their real-world decisions? Sex Roles, 68, 536–549. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0275-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A. B., Weisgram, E. S., & Belanger, A. L. (2015). New routes to recruiting and retaining women in STEM: Policy implications of a communal goal congruity perspective. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 52–58. doi:10.1111/sipr.12010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiPrete, T., & Buchmann, C. (2013). The rise of women: The female advantage in education and what it means for American schooling. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynan, K. E., & Rouse, C. E. (1997). The underrepresentation of women in economics: A study of undergraduate economics students. The Journal of Economic Education, 28(4), 350–368. doi:10.1080/00220489709597939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., & Tansey, C. (2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender and Society, 26(5), 693–717. doi:10.1177/0891243212451904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24(2), 149–166. doi:10.1177/0891243210361475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England, P., & Li, S. (2006). Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971–2002. Gender and Society, 20(5), 657–677. doi:10.1177/0891243206290753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England, P., Allison, P., Li, S., Mark, N., Thompson, J., Budig, M., & Sun, H. (2007). Why are some academic fields tipping toward female? The sex composition of U.S. fields of doctoral degree receipt, 1971–2002. Sociology of Education, 80, 23–42. doi:10.1177/003804070708000102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett, B. G., Rogers, R. G., Hummer, R. A., & Krueger, P. M. (2011). Trends in educational attainment by race/ethnicity, nativity, and sex in the United States, 1989–2005. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(9), 1543–1566. doi:10.1080/01419870.2010.543139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Frome, P. M., Alfeld, C. J., Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (2006). Why don’t they want a male-dominated job? An investigation of young women who changed their occupational aspirations. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 359–372. doi:10.1080/13803610600765786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, J., Sassler, S., Levitte, Y., & Michelmore, K. (2013). What’s so special about STEM? A comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social Forces, 92(2), 723–756. doi:10.1093/sf/sot092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2007). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 17–28. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. doi:10.1037/a0026659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911–922. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3), 153–166. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S. (1996). Lost talent: Women in the sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. doi:10.1093/sf/76.1.351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S. (2009). Swimming against the tide: African American girls and science education. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. doi:10.1177/0094306109356659s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardie, J. H. (2015). Women’s work? Predictors of young men’s aspirations for entering traditionally female-dominated occupations. Sex Roles, 72(7), 349–362. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0449-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., & Wallen, A. S. (2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 664–667. doi:10.1016/j/jesp.2010.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, G. D., Martyna, B., & Bhatia, S. (2002). Gender and achievement-related beliefs among engineering students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 41–52. doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v8.i1.30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. (2015). Changing college majors: Is it more common among STEM students and do grades matter? Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3), 46–53. doi:10.2505/4/jcst15_044_03_44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kmec, J. A., McDonald, S., & Trimble, L. B. (2010). Making gender fit and ‘correcting’ gender misfits sex segregated employment and the nonsearch process. Gender and Society, 24(2), 213–236. doi:10.1177/0891243209360531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, I., Kotrba, L., & Roebuck, A. (2015). Leaders as males?: The role of industry gender composition. Sex Roles, 72(7–8), 294–307. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0462-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, K. A., Goh, J. X., & Driver-Linn, E. (2012). Implicit science stereotypes mediate the relationship between gender and academic participation. Sex Roles, 66(3), 220–234. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0036-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, A. E. (2010). The shifting supply of men and women to occupations: Feminization in veterinary education. Social Forces, 88(5), 1969–1998. doi:10.1353/sof.2010.0043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lueptow, L. B., Garovich‐Szabo, L., & Lueptow, M. B. (2001). Social change and the persistence of sex typing: 1974–1997. Social Forces, 80, 1–35. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, M. R., & Pfeister, A. (2007). The generality and consequences of stereotype threat. Sociological Compass, 1, 174–190. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00021.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, L. K., & Daniel, L. G. (2008). Perceptions of a chilly climate: Differences in traditional and non-traditional majors for women. Research in Higher Education, 49(3), 256–273. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9078-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14–01). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/.

  • Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race and science. Social Problems, 52(4), 593–617. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peralta, R. L. (2007). College alcohol use and the embodiment of hegemonic masculinity among European American men. Sex Roles, 56(11), 741–756. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9233-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender and Society, 18(4), 510–531. doi:10.1177/0891243204265269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2012). The more things change, the more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry into STEM majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1048–1072. doi:10.3102/0002831211435229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. M. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (2003). The American freshman: National norms for Fall 2003. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., & Stevenson, D. (1999). The ambitious generation: America’s teenagers, motivated but directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277–295. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. doi:10.2307/2655673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3), 175–183. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen-Miller, D., & Smiler, A. P. (2015). Men in female-dominated vocations: A rationale for academic study and introduction to the special issue. Sex Roles, 72(7), 269–276. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0471-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics 2012 (NCES 2014–015). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014015.

  • Snyder, K. A., & Green, A. (2008). Revisiting the glass escalator: The case of gender segregation in a female dominated occupation. Social Problems, 559(2), 271–299. doi:10.1525/sp.2008.55.2.271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starobin, S. S., & Laanan, F. S. (2008). Broadening female participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Experiences at community colleges. New Direction for Community Colleges, 142, 37–46. doi:10.1002/cc.323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. doi:10.1037/a0021385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. J. (2010). Occupational sex composition and the gendered availability of workplace support. Gender and Society, 24(2), 189–212. doi:10.1177/0891243209359912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. doi:10.1037/a0089826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39(3), 253–267. doi:10.2307/3096961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wine, J., Janson, N., & Wheeless, S. (2011). 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:04/09) full-scale methodology report (NCES 2012–246). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012246.pdf.

  • Wingfield, A. H., & Myles, R. L. (2014). Still a man’s world? Revisiting men who do women’s work. Sociology Compass, 10(8), 1206–1215. doi:10.1111/soc4.12206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wray-Lake, L., Syvertsen, A. K., Briddell, L., Osgood, D. W., & Flanagan, C. A. (2011). Exploring the changing meaning of work for American high school seniors from 1976 to 2005. Youth and Society, 43, 1110–1135. doi:10.1177/0044118x10381367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant (5 R24 HD042849, Population Research Center) awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health and Child Development, and also by a grant from the National Science Foundation, EHR-1348819, Catherine Riegle-Crumb PI, Chandra Muller, Co-PI. Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, STEM Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 1912 Speedway Stop D5700, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Catherine Riegle-Crumb

  2. Population Research Center and Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Austin, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop G1800, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Catherine Riegle-Crumb

  3. Department of Teaching and Learning, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    Barbara King

  4. Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA

    Chelsea Moore

Authors
  1. Catherine Riegle-Crumb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chelsea Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Riegle-Crumb.

Ethics declarations

This statement acknowledges that the authors have no potential conflicts of interest. This research involves surveys collected from human participants (with informed consent), which was collected by the U.S. Department of Education. The researchers have a restricted data license administered by the U.S. Department of Education that allows them to analyze this data. The researchers have IRB approval from their institution to analyze this data.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4

Table 4 College major categorization and proportion female
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B. & Moore, C. Do They Stay or Do They Go? The Switching Decisions of Individuals Who Enter Gender Atypical College Majors. Sex Roles 74, 436–449 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0583-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0583-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation