IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/emetrp/v92y2024i3p849-880.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equilibrium Grading Policies With Implications for Female Interest in STEM Courses

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Ahn
  • Peter Arcidiacono
  • Amy Hopson
  • James Thomas

Abstract

We show that stricter grading policies in STEM courses reduce STEM enrollment, especially for women. We estimate a model of student demand for courses and optimal effort choices given professor grading policies. Grading policies are treated as equilibrium objects that in part depend on student demand for courses. Differences in demand for STEM and non‐STEM courses explain much of why STEM classes give lower grades. Restrictions on grading policies that equalize average grades across classes reduce the STEM gender gap and increase overall enrollment in STEM classes.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Ahn & Peter Arcidiacono & Amy Hopson & James Thomas, 2024. "Equilibrium Grading Policies With Implications for Female Interest in STEM Courses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 92(3), pages 849-880, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:emetrp:v:92:y:2024:i:3:p:849-880
    DOI: 10.3982/ECTA17876
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA17876
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3982/ECTA17876?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chao Fu, 2014. "Equilibrium Tuition, Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment in the College Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(2), pages 225-281.
    2. Scott E. Carrell & Marianne E. Page & James E. West, 2010. "Sex and Science: How Professor Gender Perpetuates the Gender Gap," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(3), pages 1101-1144.
    3. Piopiunik, Marc & Schwerdt, Guido & Simon, Lisa & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Skills, signals, and employability: An experimental investigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    4. James Thomas, 2024. "What Do Course Offerings Imply about University Preferences?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 53-83.
    5. Ferreyra,Maria Marta & Garriga,Carlos & Martin,Juan David & Sanchez Diaz,Angelica Maria, 2020. "Raising College Access and Completion : How Much Can Free College Help ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9428, The World Bank.
    6. 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.
    7. Kevin N. Rask & Elizabeth M. Bailey, 2002. "Are Faculty Role Models? Evidence from Major Choice in an Undergraduate Institution," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 99-124, June.
    8. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    9. Joseph G. Altonji & Lisa B. Kahn & Jamin D. Speer, 2016. "Cashier or Consultant? Entry Labor Market Conditions, Field of Study, and Career Success," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(S1), pages 361-401.
    10. Griffith, Amanda L., 2010. "Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 911-922, December.
    11. Matthew Wiswall & Basit Zafar, 2015. "Determinants of College Major Choice: Identification using an Information Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(2), pages 791-824.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Peter Arcidiacono & Robert A. Miller, 2011. "Conditional Choice Probability Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models With Unobserved Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(6), pages 1823-1867, November.
    15. Richard Sabot & John Wakeman-Linn, 1991. "Grade Inflation and Course Choice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 159-170, Winter.
    16. Matthew Gentzkow, 2007. "Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 713-744, June.
    17. Dennis Epple & Richard Romano & Holger Sieg, 2006. "Admission, Tuition, and Financial Aid Policies in the Market for Higher Education," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 885-928, July.
    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. Chuan Chen & Michele Fioretti & Junnan He & Yanrong Jia, 2025. "Accelerating Equity: Overcoming the Gender Gap in VC Funding," Papers 2502.14984, arXiv.org.

    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. 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.
    2. Shulamit Kahn & Donna Ginther, 2017. "Women and STEM," NBER Working Papers 23525, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. Kugler, Adriana & Tinsley, Catherine H. & Ukhaneva, Olga, 2017. "Choice of Majors: Are Women Really Different from Men?," IZA Discussion Papers 10947, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Li, Hongyan & Xia, Xing, 2024. "Grades as signals of comparative advantage: How letter grades affect major choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    7. Timothy N. Bond & George Bulman & Xiaoxiao Li & Jonathan Smith, 2018. "Updating Human Capital Decisions: Evidence from SAT Score Shocks and College Applications," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(3), pages 807-839.
    8. Bond, Timothy N. & Bulman, George & Li, Xiaoxiao & Smith, Jonathan, 2016. "Updated Expectations and College Application Portfolios," MPRA Paper 69317, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Thomas Ahn & Peter Arcidiacono & Amy Hopson & James R. Thomas, 2019. "Equilibrium Grade Inflation with Implications for Female Interest in STEM Majors," NBER Working Papers 26556, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. 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.
    11. Todd Pugatch & Elizabeth Schroeder, 2021. "Promoting Female Interest in Economics: Limits to Nudges," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 123-127, May.
    12. Fernanda Estevan & Thomas Gall & Louis-Philippe Morin, 2019. "Can Affirmative Action Affect Major Choice?," Boston University - Department of Economics - The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers Series dp-324, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Han, Luyi & Winters, John V., 2020. "Industry Fluctuations and College Major Choices: Evidence from an Energy Boom and Bust," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    15. Fricke, Hans & Grogger, Jeffrey & Steinmayr, Andreas, 2018. "Exposure to academic fields and college major choice," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 199-213.
    16. Carmen Aina & Chiara Mussida & Gabriele Lombardi, 2023. "Are Business and Economics Alike?," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(2), pages 557-585, July.
    17. Emily E. Cook, 2021. "Competing Campuses: Equilibrium Prices, Admissions, and Undergraduate Programs in US Higher Education," Working Papers 2120, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Jaison R. Abel & Richard Deitz, 2017. "Underemployment in the Early Careers of College Graduates following the Great Recession," NBER Chapters, in: Education, Skills, and Technical Change: Implications for Future US GDP Growth, pages 149-181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Fanny Landaud & Son Thierry Ly & Éric Maurin, 2020. "Competitive Schools and the Gender Gap in the Choice of Field of Study," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 55(1), pages 278-308.

    More about this item

    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:wly:emetrp:v:92:y:2024:i:3:p:849-880. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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.