From Major Preferences to Major Choices: Gender and Logics of Major Choice

IF 3.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Sociology of Education Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.1177/0038040719887971
Natasha Quadlin
{"title":"From Major Preferences to Major Choices: Gender and Logics of Major Choice","authors":"Natasha Quadlin","doi":"10.1177/0038040719887971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research shows that college students choose majors for a variety of reasons. Some students are motivated by potential economic returns, others want to take engaging classes, and others still would like opportunities to help people in their jobs. But how do these preferences map onto students’ actual major choices? This question is particularly intriguing in light of gender differences in fields of study, as men and women may take divergent pathways in pursuit of the same outcome. Using data from the Pathways through College Study (N = 2,639), I show that men and women choose very different majors even when they cite the same major preferences—what I call gendered logics of major choice. In addition, I use earnings data from the American Community Survey to assess how these gendered logics of major choice may be associated with broader patterns of earnings inequality. I find that among men and women who have the same major preferences, men’s major choices are tied to significantly higher prospective earnings than women’s major choices. This finding demonstrates that the ways men and women translate their preferences into majors are unequal from an earnings perspective. Implications for research on higher education and gender are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51398,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"32","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719887971","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

Abstract

Research shows that college students choose majors for a variety of reasons. Some students are motivated by potential economic returns, others want to take engaging classes, and others still would like opportunities to help people in their jobs. But how do these preferences map onto students’ actual major choices? This question is particularly intriguing in light of gender differences in fields of study, as men and women may take divergent pathways in pursuit of the same outcome. Using data from the Pathways through College Study (N = 2,639), I show that men and women choose very different majors even when they cite the same major preferences—what I call gendered logics of major choice. In addition, I use earnings data from the American Community Survey to assess how these gendered logics of major choice may be associated with broader patterns of earnings inequality. I find that among men and women who have the same major preferences, men’s major choices are tied to significantly higher prospective earnings than women’s major choices. This finding demonstrates that the ways men and women translate their preferences into majors are unequal from an earnings perspective. Implications for research on higher education and gender are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从专业偏好到专业选择:性别与专业选择逻辑
研究表明,大学生选择专业的原因多种多样。一些学生的动机是潜在的经济回报,另一些人想参加有吸引力的课程,还有一些人仍然希望有机会帮助工作中的人。但这些偏好如何映射到学生实际的专业选择呢?考虑到研究领域的性别差异,这个问题尤其有趣,因为男性和女性在追求同样的结果时可能会采取不同的途径。我使用来自“大学之路研究”(N = 2639)的数据表明,即使男性和女性的专业偏好相同,他们选择的专业也会非常不同——我称之为专业选择的性别逻辑。此外,我使用美国社区调查的收入数据来评估这些专业选择的性别逻辑如何与更广泛的收入不平等模式相关联。我发现,在专业偏好相同的男性和女性中,男性的专业选择比女性的专业选择与更高的预期收入联系在一起。这一发现表明,从收入的角度来看,男性和女性将自己的偏好转化为专业的方式是不平等的。讨论了高等教育与性别研究的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.10%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Sociology of Education (SOE) provides a forum for studies in the sociology of education and human social development. SOE publishes research that examines how social institutions and individuals’ experiences within these institutions affect educational processes and social development. Such research may span various levels of analysis, ranging from the individual to the structure of relations among social and educational institutions. In an increasingly complex society, important educational issues arise throughout the life cycle.
期刊最新文献
The Expectational Liminality of Insecure College Graduates 2024 Reviewer Thank You Comparing the Efficacy of Fixed-Effects and MAIHDA Models in Predicting Outcomes for Intersectional Social Strata Intermediate Educational Transitions, Alignment, and Inequality in U.S. Higher Education Capital Flight: Examining Teachers’ Socioeconomic Status and Early Career Retention
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1