Despite trends indicating worsening internalizing problems, characterized by anxiety and depression, there is dearth of research examining gender differences in developmental trajectories of internalizing problems from early childhood to adolescence. Drawing on the UK Millennium Cohort Study (n = 17,206, 49% female), this study examines trajectories of parent-reported, clinically-meaningful (reflecting the top 10%) internalizing problems from ages 3 to 14 years and their early predictors and adolescent outcomes. Group-based modelling revealed three trajectories when examining boys and girls together, but there were significant gender differences. When examining boys and girls separately, four trajectories were identified including two relatively stable trajectories showing either high or low probabilities of internalizing problems. An increasing trajectory was also found for both boys and girls, showing an increasing probability of internalizing problems which continued to rise for girls, but levelled off for boys from age 11. A decreasing trajectory was revealed for boys, while a moderate but stable trajectory was identified for girls. Boys and girls in the increasing and high probability groups were more likely to report a number of problematic outcomes including high BMI, self-harm, low mental wellbeing, depressive symptoms, and low educational motivation than the low group. Girls on the increasing trajectory also reported more cigarette and cannabis use and early sexual activity at age 14 compared to girls on the low trajectory. Findings suggest that intervention strategies take a systemic view, targeting not only internal feelings, but also behaviours potentially associated with later negative outcomes.

The relative lack of students studying post-compulsory STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects is a key policy concern. A particular issue is the disparities in uptake by students' family background, gender and ethnicity. It remains unclear whether the relationship between student characteristics and choice can be explained by academic disparities, and whether students' background, gender and ethnicity interact in determining university subject choices, rather than simply having additive effects. I use data from more than 4000 students in England from 'Next Steps' (previously the LSYPE) and logistic regression methods to explore the interacting relationships between student characteristics and subject choice. There are four main findings of this study. Firstly, disparities by students' ethnicity are shown to increase when controlling for prior attainment. Secondly, family background indicators are differentially related to uptake for male and female students, with parents' social class and education larger predictors of choice than financial resources. Thirdly, gender, ethnicity and family background interact in determining choices. Particularly, as socio-economic position increases, young women are more likely to choose STEM over other high-return subjects. Finally, associations between student characteristics and subject choices, including interactions, largely persisted when accounting for A-level choices. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.

Educational inequalities are one of the most critical issues facing contemporary societies. While there is a substantial body of quantitative literature tracking inequalities in education based on students' characteristics, an emerging literature is applying the concept of intersectionality to acknowledge the multiple, overlapping impact of these characteristics. We discuss the contributions of intersectionality to quantitative research on (vertical and horizontal) educational inequalities (attainment and subject choice). We then discuss the limitations inherent in this work, along with methodological innovations aimed at addressing these limitations. Finally, we make recommendations for researchers, to encourage greater use of intersectionality in quantitative educational research and thereby to deepen our knowledge of inequalities.

Prior research has shown that students from less educated families are less likely to study both science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects and arts and humanities subjects. This article used a large representative sample of university students in England to explore the relationship between students' enjoyment, perception of ability and socioeconomic disparities in subject choices. Although these attitudes differed by students' parents' education level, and were associated with subject choices, disparities in choices persisted when accounting for these differences. Students with less educated parents were less likely to choose arts and humanities and more likely to study social sciences, law and business, over STEM, even when their enjoyment and perception of ability in subjects were similar. Students whose parents had higher levels of education were more likely to choose STEM over arts and humanities as their enjoyment of STEM increased, suggesting different underlying processes informing student choices by social background.

This guide accompanies the following article: Codiroli McMaster, N. & Cook, R. (2018) The contribution of intersectionality to quantitative research into educational inequality, Review of Education, https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3116.