IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v6y2017i2p47-d98161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weeded Out? Gendered Responses to Failing Calculus

Author

Listed:
  • Tanya Sanabria

    (Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA)

  • Andrew Penner

    (Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA)

Abstract

Although women graduate from college at higher rates than men, they remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This study examines whether women react to failing a STEM weed-out course by switching to a non-STEM major and graduating with a bachelor’s degree in a non-STEM field. While competitive courses designed to weed out potential STEM majors are often invoked in discussions around why students exit the STEM pipeline, relatively little is known about how women and men react to failing these courses. We use detailed individual-level data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) Postsecondary Transcript Study (PETS): 1988–2000 to show that women who failed an introductory calculus course are substantially less likely to earn a bachelor’s degree in STEM. In doing so, we provide evidence that weed-out course failure might help us to better understand why women are less likely to earn degrees.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanya Sanabria & Andrew Penner, 2017. "Weeded Out? Gendered Responses to Failing Calculus," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:6:y:2017:i:2:p:47-:d:98161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/2/47/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/2/47/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    2. Kokkelenberg, Edward C. & Sinha, Esha, 2010. "Who succeeds in STEM studies? An analysis of Binghamton University undergraduate students," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 935-946, December.
    3. Rask, Kevin, 2010. "Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 892-900, December.
    4. Ost, Ben, 2010. "The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 923-934, December.
    5. Rask, Kevin & Tiefenthaler, Jill, 2008. "The role of grade sensitivity in explaining the gender imbalance in undergraduate economics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 676-687, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Thébaud & Maria Charles, 2018. "Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-18, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ehrenberg, Ronald G., 2010. "Analyzing the factors that influence persistence rates in STEM field, majors: Introduction to the symposium," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 888-891, December.
    2. Veronica Minaya, 2020. "Do Differential Grading Standards Across Fields Matter for Major Choice? Evidence from a Policy Change in Florida," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(8), pages 943-965, December.
    3. Michael Kaganovich & Morgan Taylor & Ruli Xiao, 2023. "Gender Differences in Persistence in a Field of Study: This Isn’t All about Grades," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(4), pages 503-556.
    4. Kugler, Adriana D. & Tinsley, Catherine H. & Ukhaneva, Olga, 2021. "Choice of majors: are women really different from men?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. David L. Sjoquist & John V. Winters, 2015. "State Merit Aid Programs and College Major: A Focus on STEM," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(4), pages 973-1006.
    6. Griffith, Amanda L. & Main, Joyce B., 2019. "First impressions in the classroom: How do class characteristics affect student grades and majors?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 125-137.
    7. Fischer, Stefanie, 2017. "The downside of good peers: How classroom composition differentially affects men's and women's STEM persistence," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 211-226.
    8. Winters, John V., 2014. "STEM graduates, human capital externalities, and wages in the U.S," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 190-198.
    9. Sovero, Veronica & Buchinsky, Moshe & Baird, Matthew D., 2021. "Playing catch up: A term-level investigation of the racial gap in STEM retention," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Delaney, Judith M. & Devereux, Paul J., 2021. "Gender differences in college applications: Aspiration and risk management," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    11. Bottia, Martha Cecilia & Stearns, Elizabeth & Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin & Moller, Stephanie & Valentino, Lauren, 2015. "Growing the roots of STEM majors: Female math and science high school faculty and the participation of students in STEM," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 14-27.
    12. Michael Kaganovich & Morgan Taylor & Ruli Xiao, 2021. "Gender Differences in Persistence in a Field of Study," CESifo Working Paper Series 9087, CESifo.
    13. Pål Schøne & Kristine von Simson & Marte Strøm, 2020. "Peer gender and educational choices," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1763-1797, October.
    14. Ralph Stinebrickner & Todd R. Stinebrickner, 2014. "A Major in Science? Initial Beliefs and Final Outcomes for College Major and Dropout," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(1), pages 426-472.
    15. Pia M. Orrenius & Madeline Zavodny, 2015. "Does Immigration Affect Whether US Natives Major in Science and Engineering?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(S1), pages 79-108.
    16. SeEun Jung & Radu Vranceanu, 2017. "Gender Interaction in Teams: Experimental Evidence on Performance and Punishment Behavior," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 33, pages 95-126.
    17. Shulamit Kahn & Donna Ginther, 2017. "Women and STEM," NBER Working Papers 23525, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Nicholas Voorhees & Justin C. Ortagus & Erica Marti, 2023. "Give It a Swirl? An Examination of the Influence of 4-Year Students Taking Entry-Level Math Courses at the Local Community College," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(1), pages 147-173, February.
    19. Peveri, Julieta & Sangnier, Marc, 2023. "Gender differences in re-contesting decisions: New evidence from French municipal elections," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 574-594.
    20. Patricia K Hunt & Michelle Dong & Crystal M Miller, 2021. "A multi-year science research or engineering experience in high school gives women confidence to continue in the STEM pipeline or seek advancement in other fields: A 20-year longitudinal study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:6:y:2017:i:2:p:47-:d:98161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.