This paper examines the significant shift in U.S. higher education where women now earn more bachelor's degrees than men, a reversal from historical patterns. While women's enrollment and graduation rates have surpassed men's since the mid-1980s across racial and ethnic groups, substantial inequalities persist. The analysis reveals a critical paradox: despite educational gains, women earn considerably less than male peers with equivalent degrees. A major driver is occupational segregation, particularly women's underrepresentation in high-paying fields like computer science and engineering, where women comprise only 18 percent of graduates. The paper argues that addressing these disparities requires targeted interventions in STEM recruitment, curriculum reform, workplace culture change, and revaluation of traditionally female-dominated professions.
One of the most surprising and significant recent trends in higher education in the United States is that women now make up a larger percentage of college students and graduates than men. Historically, women's pursuit of higher education was sometimes treated as ancillary to marriage and family formation. Today, that perception could not be farther from the truth. "Both men and women complete more schooling now than in the past, but beginning in the mid-1980s, women's college completion rates began to surpass men's in the United States" (Schwartz & Han 2014: 605). There is increasing evidence that women regard education as critical for personal advancement and economic stability.
Statistical evidence of this reversal is striking. "Among whites in 2006, women obtained 57 percent of bachelor's degrees while among Blacks, women receiving bachelor's degrees made up 66 percent of college graduates. The Hispanic population was also in that range, as 61 percent of Hispanic college graduates were women" (Wilson 2013). However, although women are graduating at higher rates than their male colleagues, they still lag behind men with college degrees in terms of their earning power—a paradox that demands closer examination.
While women's enrollment advantage is clear, public figures including President Obama have specifically targeted young Black men as requiring assistance with navigating high school and college. However, the gender gap in college enrollment extends far beyond Black youth and is not limited to minority populations. "In 1994, among high school graduates, 62% of young white men and 66% of young white women were enrolled in college immediately after graduation—a four percentage point gender gap. In 2012, that gap had grown to 10 percentage points as the share of young white women enrolled in college grew to 72% while the rate for men remained the same" (Lopez & Barrea 2014).
This widening gap across racial and ethnic groups demonstrates the pervasiveness of the trend. Although the gender gap is magnified within certain racial groups and is less manifest among Asian Americans, its persistence holds true across Caucasian, Black, and Latino demographics, all of which have very different educational histories within the context of the U.S. The causes of this gap are complex, spanning from greater opportunities for women to behavioral and disciplinary issues in young boys that inhibit educational advancement (Lopez & Barrea 2014).
Despite women's rising educational attainment, a critical inequity persists: the pay gap between women and men who attain higher degrees remains substantial. One reason for this disparity may be the disproportionate concentration of men in the sciences and other high-income-yielding fields. This occupational segregation means that educational parity has not translated into economic parity.
The scope of this earnings gap is significant. Women ages 30 to 44 had earnings that ranged from approximately 49 to 76 percent of those of males, even when possessing the same level of education (Bae et al 2000: 94). This statistic reveals that educational achievement alone is insufficient to close the income gap. The problem is not simply that fewer women are attending college—it is that the fields women choose, or are steered toward, command lower salaries and offer fewer pathways to advancement.
One of the most striking examples of occupational gender segregation is in computer science and engineering. As these scientific fields have become more prestigious and lucrative, women's representation has actually declined. "Only 18 percent of computer science graduates in the United States are women, down from 37 percent in 1985" (Miller 2014). This reversal is particularly troubling because computing and engineering represent some of the highest-paying career paths available to college graduates.
Some institutions have successfully implemented targeted recruitment and retention programs. Harvey Mudd and Carnegie Mellon University, for example, have achieved notable success; "40 percent of incoming freshmen to the School of Computer Science are women" (Miller 2014) at Carnegie Mellon. The most successful programs at recruiting women made a commitment to changing the curriculum, often emphasizing creative problem-solving versus pure coding (Miller 2014). These examples demonstrate that gender disparities in STEM are not inevitable but can be addressed through deliberate institutional action and curriculum redesign.
To understand where gender disparities in field choice originate, it is essential to examine educational performance across different grade levels. During elementary school, girls are notably stronger than boys across all subject levels and are also less likely to exhibit symptoms of learning disabilities. "Evidence suggests that girls are perceived as adjusting more readily than boys to formal schooling. Among children in grades 1 to 3 in 1995, girls were more likely than boys to be described by their parents as near the top of their class. Girls were less likely than boys to have their parents contacted by their schools about problems with their behavior or schoolwork" (Bae 2000: 3).
Girls maintain their academic advantage through high school. Girls are more likely to take Advanced Placement (AP) exams and score 3 or better than boys. "Beginning in 1971 and continuing through every year of assessment, females ages 9, 13, and 17 have tested higher than their male peers in reading assessments administered as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)" (Bae 2000: 4). This early superiority suggests that girls' later underrepresentation in STEM fields is not attributable to innate ability.
The math-science gap emerges later and reveals a different pattern. In one international study, "boys and girls performed similarly in mathematics and science around the fourth grade in about half of the countries, with differences emerging more systematically among older students" (Bae 2000: 4). This suggests that gender disparities in STEM interest and achievement are not present from the beginning of schooling but develop during the transition to middle and high school, pointing to social and cultural factors rather than inherent aptitude.
The effects of gender segregation become concrete when examining major choice in college. "In terms of major choice, women and men continue to pursue traditionally gendered majors. Typically female-dominated fields include: foreign language, education, sociology, psychology, and English. On the opposite end of the spectrum, male-dominated fields include: physics, chemistry, economics, computer science, and accounting/finance" (Wilson 2013). This persistent occupational segregation directly translates to differences in lifetime earnings.
The income consequences are measurable and substantial. Female-gendered fields such as social work and education, and even soft skills business degrees like marketing, tend to be less lucrative than fields dominated by men. "Women make up 56 percent of workers in the 20 lowest-paid jobs, and just 29 percent of those in the 20 highest-paid jobs" (Bidwell 2014). The gap widens over time as well: males outpace females in terms of their earnings trajectory, earning progressively more over the course of their careers while women's earnings plateau.
Historically, this disparity has been attributed to women's need to exit the labor force to raise children. However, the disproportionate concentration of women in majors with low pay and high unemployment rates—resulting in a spottier job history and fewer opportunities for advancement—should not be underestimated as a contributing factor. Even in fields where women do participate, the data reveal troubling trends. "Fifty-two percent of biology Ph.D.s are women, but their representation shrinks to 39 percent at the postdoc level, and only 18 percent at the tenured professor level" (Hu 2014). This "leaky pipeline" indicates that women's attrition from advanced positions is systematic, not coincidental.
These discrepancies suggest that addressing the inequalities that persist between the genders requires highly specific programs targeting specific issues. The problem is not simply getting more women to attend college; rather, specific inequalities must be directly confronted. Girls may not receive enough support to sustain interest and confidence in the sciences and mathematics during high school, and the lack of female role models can create a self-perpetuating cycle the higher a student progresses in academia. Furthermore, women in the sciences report small but constant microaggressions from colleagues, partially due to the disproportionate representation of males (Hu 2014).
"Targeted STEM recruitment and workplace culture reform required"
You’re 89% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.