Priming the Pump or the Sieve: Institutional Contexts and URM STEM Degree Attainments

1. Priming the Pump or the Sieve: InstitutionalContexts and URM STEM Degree Attainments Sylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Bryce Hughes Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA

2. 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. A National Imperative

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. 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-med/pharm/dental/vet (-) compared to biosciences

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 STEMCompared 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 institutions where used.

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: Sylvia Hurtado Mitchell Chang Administrative Staff: Dominique Harrison Postdoctoral Scholars: Kevin Eagan Josephine Gasiewski Graduate Research Assistants: Tanya Figueroa Gina Garcia Juan Garibay Felisha Herrera Bryce Hughes 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.