Equal but Separate? A Cross-National Study of Sex Segregation in Higher Education

Abstract

The contours and correlates of sex segregation in higher education are explored using data from twelve advanced industrialized countries. Tertiary sex segregation is examined across two dimensions: field of study (horizontal segregation) and tertiary level (vertical segregation). The authors argue that the different aspects of female status in higher education (e.g., overall enrollments, representation at the postgraduate level, and representation in traditionally male-dominated fields of study) do not covary because each variable is affected in distinct ways by structural and cultural features commonly associated with “modernity. “ In particular, (1) ideals of universalism do more to undermine vertical segregation than horizontal segregation, and (2) some modern structural features may actually exacerbate specific forms of sex segregation. Consistent with these arguments, results suggest strongly integrative effects of gender-egalitarian cultural attitudes on distributions across tertiary levels, and weaker, less uniform cultural effects on distributions across fields of study (one notable exception being a strong positive effect on women's representation in engineering programs). Two modern structural features—diversified tertiary systems and high rates of female employment—show segregative effects in some fields and institutional sectors. Overall, few across-the-board integrative or segregative effects can be discerned that would lend support to evolutionary conceptualizations of gender stratification. Modern cultural and structural pressures are manifested unevenly and in contextually contingent ways.

Venus, Mars, and Math: Gender, Societal Affluence, and Eighth Graders’ Aspirations for STEM

“…By modeling within-country change in eighth grade boys' and girls' aspirations as a function of within-country change in societal affluence, I am able to measure the affluence effect net of stable country-level characteristics (i.e., characteristics that do not change substantially over the period of study). These include geographic region, religious and secular cultural traditions, levels of political democracy, welfare-state regime type (Cooke 2011), national work-family policies (Mandel and Semyonov 2006;Pettit and Hook 2009), and such properties of educational systems as ability tracking, testing regimes, and density of single-sex and religious-based schooling (Buchmann and Dalton 2002;Charles and Bradley 2002). As a second analytical step, I explore some intermediary variables that may be more proximate drivers of an attitudinal gender gap in affluent societies.…”

Critical Discourse Analysis of Intercultural Communication through the Lens of Multiculturality and Interraciality

“…He details how ideologies embedded in language are shaped by the structure of the text and the unfolding events within the discourse. This shaping of ideology by structures and events sets expectations for the reader (Charles & Bradley, 2002). Likewise, linguistic structures instill expectations in the discourse analyst regarding the meaning-making potential of a text, as these structures delve into linguistic elements like semantics and syntax.…”

How Gender, Culture, and Economy Influence Field of Study Preferences in Higher Education: Exploring Gender Gaps in STEM, AHSS, and Medicine among International Students

“…Nevertheless, the study field choice is not student-gender neutral as men and women tend to significantly differ in terms of their preferences and enrolments per different academic specializations [6][7][8][9]. More precisely, men are more prone to choose science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, whereas women show a higher probability of choosing arts, humanities, and social sciences, or medicine [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Although women are a majority among the high-education enrolled students at a global level, field study segregation remains a critical factor that accounts for the prevalence of wage inequalities among men and women in the labor market [18][19][20][21][22][23][24].…”

“…The specialized literature reveals more explanations for gender imparity in different fields and academic disciplines [23,25,26], but empirical findings undermine their explanatory power [27]. Some of these explanations focus on microlevel factor effects, such as cognitive skills specific to each gender, perceived self-efficacy in various study fields, gender role socialization, and gender beliefs and stereotypes [13,[28][29][30]; for a review, see [31]. On one hand, these factors might only account for a small part of the study Sustainability 2023, 15, 15820 2 of 17 field choice variation, and on the other hand, they have inconsistent effects in different countries and contexts [15,32,33].…”

“…On one hand, these factors might only account for a small part of the study Sustainability 2023, 15, 15820 2 of 17 field choice variation, and on the other hand, they have inconsistent effects in different countries and contexts [15,32,33]. Other explanations underline macrolevel factors such as educational system structures, job market opportunities, and the incentives for different study fields, as well as the cultural and institutional contexts which shape gender norms and expectations [8,13,34,35]. Rather often, these factors have heterogeneous effects on the study field choice or interact with the microlevel factors in multiple and contradictory ways [16,34,35].…”