General Principles of Intellectual Property: Concepts of Intellectual Proper...
Priming the Pump or the Sieve: Institutional Contexts and URM STEM Degree Attainments
1. Priming the Pump or the Sieve:
Institutional Contexts and URM STEM
Degree Attainments
Sylvia Hurtado
Kevin Eagan
Bryce Hughes
Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA
2. A National Imperative
National Academies (2011) report Expanding
Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s
Science and Technology Talent
Establishes most of the growth in the new jobs will require
science and technology skills
―Those groups that are most underrepresented in S&E are
also the fastest growing the general population‖ (National
Academies, 2011, p. 3).
In an effort to achieve long-term parity in a diverse
workforce, they recommend a near term, reasonable goal of
improving institutional efforts to double the number of
underrepresented minorities receiving undergraduate STEM
degrees.
3. A National Imperative
2012 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) report, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million
Additional College Graduates With Degrees In
Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics
Increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50%
would, alone, generate three-quarters of the targeted 1 million
additional STEM degrees over the next decade.
Retaining more students in STEM majors is the lowest-
cost, fastest policy option to providing the STEM professionals
that the nation needs.
Changing productivity levels means changing practices, and
mindsets from priming the sieve to priming the pump, or talent
development.
4. Purpose of the Study
• Identify the faculty and institutional
characteristics that contribute to higher rates
of STEM degree completion, particularly
among underrepresented groups, controlling
for students’ entering characteristics.
• Identify challenges and opportunities to prime
the pump and improve the use of ―evidence-
based‖ approaches.
5. Literature Review: Student-level
Characteristics
Pre-college experiences
Strong high school curriculum
High test scores and grades
Advanced courses in science and mathematics
High aspirations for a STEM degree
URM students less likely to access AP courses,
yet equally or more likely to aspire to a STEM
degree
6. Literature Review: Institutional-Level
Characteristics
Faculty pedagogies
STEM courses tend to utilize teacher-centered pedagogies
Introductory STEM courses perceived as ―gatekeepers‖ to STEM
degrees
Student-centered pedagogies key to retaining women and URM students
in STEM programs
Minority-targeted STEM retention programs
Generally improve probability of URM STEM degree completion
Mixed results regarding improving URM academic performance
Undergraduate research experiences
Found to be one of the most effective contributors to increasing URM
STEM completion odds
Benefits to students participating in undergraduate research may be
conditional depending on timing and duration
Minority-serving institutions (MSIs)
HBCUs in particular provide a unique atmosphere that supports Black
students’ degree attainment
Research is beginning to demonstrate benefits for other URM students
attending other categories of MSIs
7. Literature Review: Are Selective
Institutions Better for URM Students?
More selective universities have higher graduation rates
URM students also graduate at higher rates from more
selective institutions
More recent studies have found conditions that indicate
this benefit does not apply across the board
Wider usage of multilevel modeling in higher education
research has shown single-level modeling overstates the
effects of selectivity
Selectivity was found to be negatively related to four-year
retention of women of color in STEM
Biomedical and behavioral science students attending more
selective institutions were slightly but significantly less likely
to be retained in these programs to their fourth year
Yet many recent multilevel studies continue to confirm
selectivity positively predicts higher probability of
graduation
8. Percentage of 2004 STEM Aspirants Who Completed STEM
Degrees in Four, Five, and Six Years, by Race/Ethnicity
60
52.4
50 46.6
43
40.4
40 38.5
35.8
29.6 29
30
24 24.3 24.9
22 21.8
20.2
20 18.2
12.3 11.6
9.4
10
0
4-Year Completion 5-Year Completion 6-Year Completion
All students (N=56,499) White (N=39,160) Asian American (N=7,621)
Latino (N=3,863) Black (N=4,695) Native American (N=1,160)
Data Source: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2010-11 National Student Clearinghouse;
HERI, UCLA
9. Method
• Longitudinal Data on STEM Aspirants
• Individual level: 2004 Freshman Survey, CIRP
merged with completion data from the National
Student Clearinghouse
• Sample: 58, 292 students across 353 institutions
• Faculty Data: 2007 & 2010 HERI Faculty Survey from
659 institutions, with STEM Supplement for over
10,000 STEM faculty
• STEM Best Practices Survey – administered to STEM
deans and department chairs at our participating
campuses
• Institutional Data obtained from IPEDS, Aggregates of
Faculty, and Aggregates of Peer characteristics from
students entering the same institutions in 2004.
10. Method
Dependent Variable:
STEM completion compared to:
Bachelor’s completion in non-STEM field
No bachelor’s degree completion-includes students still
enrolled (major not known)
Measured at four, five, and six years to reflect
differences in time to degree
11. Method
Independent variables
Background characteristics
Pre-college preparation and experiences
Aspirations and expectations
Intended major
Aggregate peer effects
Institutional characteristics
Faculty contextual measures
Best practices in STEM
12. Method
Analysis
National weights
Missing data with multiple imputation
Multinomial HGLM
Limitations
Intended rather than declared major
NSC data – no information on term-to-term major
No college experience measures
Few high school preparation variables
BPS data reported by STEM Deans and Dept.
Chairs
13. Key Findings for Four Year Completers:
STEM vs. Non-STEM
Denser concentrations of MD aspirants and larger
campuses negatively predict STEM completion
Differences by race
Latino (-), Black(ns)
Asian/Pacific Islander (+)
Other race (+)
Women (-)
HS grade (+), and effect enhanced by faculty use
of student-centered pedagogy
SAT, years of HS math and biology (+)
14. Key Findings for Four-Year Completers:
STEM vs. Non-STEM
MD aspirant (+) but effect mitigated by faculty
grading on a curve and selectivity (-) condition
Ph.D./Ed.D. aspirant (+)
Law degree aspirant (-)
Engineering, physical sciences, health
tech/nursing, and computer science (+)
Pre-med, pre-pharm, pre-dental, pre-vet (-)
15. Key Findings for Five-Year Completers:
STEM vs. Non-STEM
Drop in predictive power of institutional size
Non-sig difference between Latino/other groups
and White students
Decrease in gender gap
Decrease in salience of SAT
Decrease in gap between BA/BS aspirants and
law/medical aspirants
Changes regarding majors
Engineering increased gap, more likely to complete
in 5 years
Physical science, health tech/nursing, and computer
science gap decreased compared to biomedical
aspirants
16. Key Findings for Six-Year Completers:
STEM vs. Non-STEM
Decreased salience of institutional size
Closing of gender gap
Women at selective institutions have lower STEM
completion rates than women at less selective
institutions
Drop in gap between medical degree aspirants
and BA/BS aspirants
17. Key Findings for Four-Year STEM
Completion versus No Completion
Control: private (+)
Research-focused (-) vs. comp. masters
Concentration of STEM undergraduates (-)
Institutional size (+)
Pct. of faculty involving undergraduates in research
(+)
Selectivity (+)
Racial differences: Native American and Latino (-);
Asian American (+)
Black (-), mitigated by HBCU (+) and selectivity (-)
Women (+)
Low/Low-middle income (-); upper-middle (+)
18. Key Findings for Four-Year STEM
Completion versus No Completion
HS GPA, SAT scores, years of math and bio (+)
Expect to transfer (-)
MD aspirant (+), mitigated by faculty grading on a
curve (-) and selectivity (+)
Masters degree aspirant (+)
Law degree aspirant (-)
Engineering and pre-med/pharm/dental/vet (-)
Health tech/nursing (+)
19. Key Findings for Five-Year STEM
Completion vs. No Completion
Loss of significance: institutional
control, concentration of STEM
undergraduates, size, percentage of faculty
involving UGs in research
Expanded gender gap (women +)
Expanded gap between low-income and middle
income
Reduced salience for SAT composite
MD aspirations become less salient
Increased predictive power of planning to live on
campus
Only academic major difference: pre-
20. Key Findings for Six-Year STEM
Completion vs. No Completion
Size and faculty’s involvement of undergraduates
in research significant (like in 4-year model)
Racial gaps persist, African American and Native
Am (- incr.)
Gender gap declines and is moderated by
selectivity (+) condition
Predictive power of MD aspiration drops
further, as does law degree aspiration
21. URM Six Year Completers in STEM
Compared With Non-STEM Completers:
Concentration of premedical undergraduates (-)
MD aspirants (+), but MD aspirants at more selective
institutions less likely to stay in science than MD aspiring
peers at less selective institutions
Law degree asp. (-) vs. BA/BS aspirants
Engineering aspirants (+) vs. biological sciences,
HS GPA (+), and higher achieving students complete at even
higher rates on campuses where STEM faculty used student-
centered pedagogy more often
SAT Composite and years of HS math (+)
Females (-)
Academic self-concept (+)
No significant differences between URM groups among
completers in STEM vs. Non-STEM
22. URM Six Year Completers in STEM Compared
with non-Completers
STEM faculty that involve undergrads in research
(+)
Selectivity (+)
HS STEM outreach programs at institutions (-)
Native Americans (-) vs. Latina/os
Women (+)
English Native speakers (-)
Health technology/nursing majors (-) vs. life
sciences majors
HSGPA, years of HS math, and academic self-
concept (+)
Intend to live on campus freshman year (+)
23. Conclusion
Contexts Matter
Selective institutions can improve productivity. They
promote degree completion, but students are not more
likely to complete in a STEM degrees.
Premed Phenomenon
Students who begin premed at institutions are more
likely to complete in STEM, are less likely to complete
in STEM at selective institutions, high % of premeds
causes students to switch from STEM among four year
completers—presumably a talented group.
24. Conclusion
Supportive Environments Work!
Minority engineers are more likely to be retained
in STEM if they complete college compared to
bioscience aspirants.
Having an undergraduate research program has
an effect on retaining minority students in STEM
(and quicker degree completion).
Faculty student centered pedagogy was
important to staying in STEM for high-achieving
minority students.
Grading on curve particularly hurt premed
aspirants, they were more likely to leave STEM at
25. Conclusion
In order to produce 1 million more STEM
degrees, we have to address diversity and
equity in attainments and improve access to
STEM careers.
Call for evidence-based teaching practices in
STEM.
New initiatives by AAU and APLU indicate
great interest in ―demonstration campuses‖ that
can make transformations to increase
productivity of STEM degrees.
26. Contact Information
Faculty/Co-PIs: Postdoctoral Scholars: Administrative
Sylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Staff:
Mitchell Chang Josephine Gasiewski Dominique
Harrison
Graduate Research Assistants:
Tanya Figueroa Felisha Herrera
Gina Garcia Bryce Hughes
Juan Garibay Cindy Mosqueda
Papers and reports are available for download from project website:
http://heri.ucla.edu/nih
Project e-mail: herinih@ucla.edu
This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01
GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05, the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076, and the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant 1RC1GM090776-01. This
independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors.