The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of university programs designed to support, encourage, and retain female undergraduates enrolled in math, science, and engineering (MSE) majors. Interviews and roundtable discussions with thirty-two junior and senior female MSE majors revealed numerous factors within the university setting that contributed to female MSE retention and graduation. Four factors are discussed within the scope of this article: support networks and university acclimation, faculty associations, financial assistance, and university support programs that created a more personalized educational experience.
References
1.
AlperJ. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all the way along. Science, 260, pp. 409–411.
2.
AstinA. W.AstinH. S. & DeyE. L. (1992). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. National Science Foundation. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
3.
EhrhartJ. K. & SandlerB. R. (1987). Looking for more than a few good women in traditionally male fields. Project on the status and education of women. Association of American Colleges.
4.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 201–223). New York: Macmillan.
5.
EthingtonC. A. (1995). Navigating the pipeline: Women's interpretations of socialization influences in science, engineering and mathematics. Unpublished manuscript, Educational Psychology, University of Memphis.
6.
GoldbergerN. R.TaruleJ. M.ClinchyB. M. & BelenkyM. F. (1996). Knowledge, difference, and power. New York: Basic Books.
7.
HewittN. & SeymourE. (1991). Factors contributing to the high attrition rates among science and engineering undergraduate majors. Report of the Alfred Sloan Foundation.
8.
HydeM. S. (1997). A case study of undergraduate female students majoring in math, science and engineering: An analysis of persistence and success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
9.
KahleJ. B. & LakesM. K. (1983). The myth of equality in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 131–140.
10.
MalletteB. I. & CabreraA. F. (1991). Determinants of withdrawal behavior: An exploratory study. Research in High Education, 32(2), 179–194.
11.
McIlweeJ. S. & RobinsonJ. G. (1992). Women in engineering. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
12.
MilesM. B. & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13.
National Center for Educational Statistics (1997). Findings from the condition of education: Women in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14.
National Science Board (1993). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15.
National Science Board (1995). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
PallasS. M. & AlexanderK. L. (1983). Sex differences in quantitative SAT performance. New evidence on the differential course work hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 165–182.
17.
RaymanP. & BrettB. (1993). Pathways for women in science. The Wellesley Report Part 1: Wellesley, MA: Stateline Graphics.
18.
RaymanP. & BrettB. (1995). Women science majors: What makes a difference in science majors after graduation?Journal of Higher Education, 66(4), 388–412.
19.
RogoffB. (1990). Explanations of cognitive development through social interaction: Vygotsky and Piaget. Apprenticeship in thinking, cognitive development in social content. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
SadkerD. & SadkerM. (1985). Is the classroom O.K.?Phi Delta Kappan, 55(1), 358–361.
21.
SadkerD. & SadkerM. (1990). Confronting sexism in the college classroom. In GabrielS. L. & SmithsonI. (Eds.), Gender in the classroom (pp. 25–69). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
22.
SeymourE. (1992). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79(4), 437–473.
23.
SpindlerG. D. & SpindlerL. (1992). Cultural processes and ethnography: An anthropological perspective. In LeCompteM. D.MillroyW. L. & PreissleJ. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 53–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
24.
StrentaC.ElliottR.MatierM.ScottJ. & AdairR. (1993). Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. General factors and the question of gender. Report to the Alfred Sloan Foundation.
25.
TintoV. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.
26.
TintoV. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
TobiasS. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different. Tucson: Research Corporation.
28.
TobinK. & GallagherJ. J. (1987). The role of target students in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 61–75.
29.
Vazquez-AbadJ.WinerL. R. & DeromeJ. (1997). Why some stay: A study of factors contributing to persistence in undergraduate physics. McGill Journal of Education, 32(3), 208–229.
30.
VockellE. L. & LoboncS. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping by high school females in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 209–219.
31.
WoodsP. (1992). Symbolic interactionism: Theory and method. In LeCompteM. D.MillroyW. L. & PreissleJ. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 337–395). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
