« Back to Results

Why Are Women and Minorities Less Likely to Choose Economics and STEM Majors/Fields?

Paper Session

Friday, Jan. 7, 2022 12:15 PM - 2:15 PM (EST)

Hosted By: American Economic Association & Committee on Economic Education
  • Chair: John A. List, University of Chicago

Gender Gaps in Parental Investments in Early Childhood

Amanda Chuan
,
Michigan State University
John A. List
,
University of Chicago
Shreemayi Samujjwala
,
University of Southern California
Anya Samek
,
University of California-San Diego

Abstract

Parental investments at early ages can shape children’s future educational specializations. Using a longitudinal study, we find that parents invest more in daughters than sons at ages 3-5. Moreover, parents’ beliefs about their children’s reading and math abilities are higher for girls than boys. We examine how these behaviors and beliefs predict children’s academic performance 4-6 years later. We find that early parental investment and beliefs lead to persistently higher English scores for girls than boys in grades 3-5. However, there is no gender gap in math scores. The results suggest that parental beliefs and behaviors at ages 3-5 contribute to girls’ advantage in English but have little impact on math. In our data, parents' investments appear to be domain-specific, giving girls an advantage in reading that does not transfer to math. Since math skills are foundational for economics and STEM, these investments may be more effective in promoting skills for the arts over economics and STEM. If parents invest more in girls and early skill development shapes students’ later educational decisions, the greater effectiveness of parental investment in reading than math may lead women to favor the arts over economics or STEM fields later on.

How Adolescent Skills and Preferences Shape Economics Education Choices

Lenka Fiala
,
Nova School of Business and Economics
John Eric Humphries
,
Yale University
Juanna S. Joensen
,
University of Chicago
Uditi Karna
,
University of Chicago
John A. List
,
University of Chicago
Gregory Veramendi
,
University of Munich

Abstract

Why are women and minorities less likely to major in Economics? We study the early determinants of Economics college major choice in two potential pools of talent: A sample drawn from a low-income minority population in the South suburbs of Chicago, and a large representative sample from Sweden. We show that self-selection into the Economics college major is largely driven by more math-intensive course choices in high school and in middle school. Despite no gender differences in math performance in middle school, women and minorities state a stronger subjective dislike for math and are less likely to choose more advanced math courses. This suggests that diverging preferences and choices during middle school make the economics education pipeline leak much earlier than college. Therefore, the middle school years could be a sensitive period for interventions to attract talented women and minorities into math-intensive majors such as Economics.

Can (Online) Mentoring Change Perceptions and Interest in Economics?

Matthew A. Kraft
,
Brown University
Jeffrey Livingston
,
Bentley University
Sally Sadoff
,
University of California-San Diego

Abstract

We randomly match middle school students in the Chicago area with volunteer college student mentors/tutors. Mentoring takes place online. As part of the program, mentors shared with students’ information about their college major and what kinds of topics you can study in their field. We collect a range of measures including engagement with the mentoring program, academic performance, preferences and expectations related to education and career, perceptions of what Economists do, and various measures of the student-mentor relationship. We examine the impact of being randomly assigned to a mentor with a particular major. In particular, we focus on the extent to which mentors who are Economics majors change students’ perceptions and foster interest in studying economics. We also shed light on which aspects of the mentor and student-mentor relationship are important for the information delivery to have an impact on the students’ perceptions and aspirations.

Do Experiments Teach Basic Economics Lessons Better than Traditional Teaching Techniques?

Sacha Gelfer
,
Bentley University
Jeffrey Livingston
,
Bentley University
Sutanuka Roy
,
Australian National University

Abstract

This study examines whether in-class experiments help students learn important Economics lessons better than traditional methods. To address this question, we conduct an experiment in undergraduate Introductory Microeconomics and Macroeconomics classes. In each section of a class, we randomize two lessons out of four potential candidates into treatment or control. Treatment lessons are taught using an in-class experiment that is designed to illustrate the topic. Control lessons are taught using traditional techniques. Our design follows the recommendations of Wozny et al. (2018) by randomizing across lessons within a given course, increasing the power of our statistical tests. For each of these four lessons, the instructors give a multiple choice quiz after they have finished teaching the topic. We also ask several multiple choice questions on the course final exam related to each of these lessons. This allows us to measure both whether the experiments help students learn key lessons better than traditional techniques in both the short term and the long term. The classes in our sample are taught mostly by instructors who are inexperienced in the use of experiments as a teaching tool, so our results should be generalizable to schools that have not commonly used this technique.

Discussant(s)
Stephanie Cheng
,
Edgeworth Economics
Mikael Lindahl
,
University of Gothenburg
Yana Gallen
,
University of Chicago
Xiaoyue Shan
,
University of Pennsylvania
JEL Classifications
  • A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics
  • J1 - Demographic Economics