Young Women Face Disadvantage to Enrollment in University STEM Coursework Regardless of Prior Achievement and Attitudes

• Published in: American educational research journal Vol. 56; no. 5; pp. 1629 - 1680
• Main Authors: Marsh, Herbert W., Van Zanden, Brooke, Parker, Philip D., Guo, Jiesi, Conigrave, James, Seaton, Marjorie
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publishing 01.10.2019; SAGE Publications; American Educational Research Association
• Subjects: Academic Achievement; Biological Sciences; Children & youth; College Science; College Students; Colleges & universities; Course Selection (Students); Disadvantaged; Educational attainment; Educational research; Enrollment; Enrollments; Enrolment; Expectancy value theory; Expectation; Females; Foreign Countries; Gender; Gender Differences; Gender issues; High School Students; Higher education; Longitudinal Studies; Males; Physical Sciences; Secondary schools; Self Efficacy; STEM Education; Student Attitudes; Subject selection (Students); Surveys; Upper secondary years; Women; Australia; STEM enrollment; expectancy value theory; gender; educational attainment; science education
• ISSN: 0002-8312; 1935-1011
• DOI: 10.3102/0002831218824111

We evaluated STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) coursework selection by women and men (representative longitudinal sample, 10,370 Australians) in senior high school and university, controlling achievement and expectancy-value variables. A near-zero total effect of gender on high school STEM enrollment reflected pathways favoring boys through achievement and expectancy-value variables, but a counteracting direct effect of gender favoring girls. In contrast, subsequent university STEM enrollment favored boys. In both high school and university, enrollments favored girls in life sciences and boys in physical sciences, but at university there was a leaky pipeline in which girls who qualified to pursue physical sciences opted for non-STEM subjects. Qualitative analysis not only supported quantitative results but also highlighted alternative mechanisms of STEM engagement/disengagement, and mostly supported gender similarities rather than differences.