Preferences, constraints, and the process of sex segregation in college majors: A choice analysis

Abstract

The persistence of horizontal sex segregation in higher education continues to puzzle social scientists. To help resolve this puzzle, we analyze a sample of college entrants in Germany with a discrete choice design that allows for social learning from the experiences of others. We make at least two contributions to the state of research. First, we test whether essentialist gender stereotypes affect major selection mostly through internalization or rather as external constraints that high school graduates adapt their behavior to. Empirically, we find that internalized vocational interests better explain gendered major choices than conformance with friends' and parents' expectations does. Second, we scrutinize whether segregation results from women's anticipation of gendered family roles or from their anticipation of sex-based discrimination, but we find no evidence for either of these hypotheses. As in most previous studies, differences in mathematics achievement fail to explain gendered patterns of selection into college majors.

The duration of family-related employment interruptions – the role of occupational characteristics

“…But we can at least in part control for these potential selection processes by focusing on employment-oriented women in our sample and by considering the educational achievement and the professional position of the mothers prior to the employment interruption. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent familyrelated attitudes influence job selection in the first place (for choice in field of study e. g. Lörz and Schindler 2011;Ochsenfeld 2016). Regardless of possible selection processes, our results demonstrate that the expected improved work-family balance that female-dominated occupations promise due to higher part-time rates does not seem to be attained or does not provide sufficient incentives for the mothers to return.…”

“…For example, Hakim (2002) does not find any connection between women's preferences for family or employment and the selection of femaleor male-dominated occupations. Ochsenfeld (2016) among others finds no indication that university subject choice is determined by the anticipation of gendered family roles (see also Lörz and Schindler 2011). Additionally, research has shown that actual occupational changes in the context of starting a family are not necessarily based on the gender composition of the occupations (Trappe and Rosenfeld 2004) and that occupations dominated by women have a similar probability of being populated by women with and without children (Roos 1985).…”

Gender differences in the choice of field of study and the relevance of income information. Insights from a field experiment

“…One important reason is that men choose fields of study, or college majors, that lead to more lucrative occupations in terms of income than women (e.g., Bobbitt-Zeher, 2007;Leuze & Strauß, 2009). Thus, improving our knowledge about the mechanisms behind the gendered patterns of major choices has been identified as highly relevant to combating gender inequality in the labor market (e.g., Barone, 2011;Charles & Bradley, 2002Jonsson, 1999;Legewie & DiPrete, 2014;Lörz, Schindler, & Walter, 2011;Mann & DiPrete, 2013;Morgan, Gelbgiser, & Weeden, 2013;Ochsenfeld, 2016;Zafar, 2013). In this paper, we contribute to this literature by exploring students' responsiveness to information on majorspecific wages for gender differences in major choices.…”

“…Research on gender differences in major choices (e.g., Barone, 2011;Ochsenfeld, 2016) draws on two theoretical perspectives: cultural explanations and rational choice explanations. The former state that boys and girls internalize gender stereotypes and roles during their socialization, resulting in different interests, course work patterns, (subjectively perceived) abilities, and life goals that, in turn, lead to gender differences in major choices (e.g., Charles & Bradley, 2002.…”

“…Empirically, various studies agree that gender stereotypes and roles seem to lead to "gender-appropriate" decisions for, or against, certain majors (e.g., Charles & Bradley, 2009;Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009;Jonsson, 1999;Lörz et al, 2011;Ochsenfeld, 2016). What is still unclear, however, is whether they result in "gender-appropriate" major choices because 1 Social costs include belonging to the minority and fear of discrimination (Jonsson, 1999, p. 394).…”