IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v72y2020i2p347-369..html

Sociocultural background and choice of STEM majors at university

Author

Listed:
  • Aderonke Osikominu
  • Volker Grossmann
  • Marius Osterfeld

Abstract

This article proposes a generalized Roy model to examine the role of students’ sociocultural background for choosing a STEM major at university. We combine survey data on Swiss university graduates with rich municipality level information. We use a principal component analysis to construct an indicator capturing progressive attitudes in a student’s home environment. Our structural approach allows directly comparing the importance of sociocultural background with that of pecuniary returns and costs in the choice of college major. Identification exploits individual differences in the relative cost of studying STEM that are unrelated to the local economic environment. Male students from conservative backgrounds are more likely to study STEM, whereas women are unaffected by sociocultural background besides majority language. The effect of the progressivism indicator for males is about half of the effect of the earnings return to STEM and twice as large as the effect of the relative monetary cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Aderonke Osikominu & Volker Grossmann & Marius Osterfeld, 2020. "Sociocultural background and choice of STEM majors at university," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 347-369.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:72:y:2020:i:2:p:347-369.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpz034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Briel, Stephanie & Osikominu, Aderonke & Pfeifer, Gregor & Reutter, Mirjam & Satlukal, Sascha, 2020. "Overconfidence and Gender Differences in Wage Expectations," IZA Discussion Papers 13517, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Chise Diana & Fort Margherita & Monfardini Chiara, 2021. "On the Intergenerational Transmission of STEM Education among Graduate Students," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 115-145, January.
    3. Andreas Kuhn & Stefan C. Wolter, 2023. "The strength of gender norms and gender‐stereotypical occupational aspirations among adolescents," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(1), pages 101-124, February.
    4. Berlanda, Andrea & Buonanno, Paolo & Puca, Marcello, 2023. "Religion and women: How Waldensians reduced the gender gap," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Stephanie Briel & Aderonke Osikominu & Gregor Pfeifer & Mirjam Reutter & Sascha Satlukal, 2022. "Gender differences in wage expectations: the role of biased beliefs," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 187-212, January.
    6. Granato, Silvia, 2023. "Early Influences and the choice of college major: Can policies reduce the gender gap in scientific curricula (STEM)?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 494-521.
    7. Emily McDool & Damon Morris, 2022. "Gender differences in science, technology, engineering and maths uptake and attainment in post‐16 education," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 90(5), pages 473-499, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General
    • C31 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:oxecpp:v:72:y:2020:i:2:p:347-369.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    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.