Ann L. Mullen

Elite destinations: pathways to attending an Ivy League university

As higher education expands and becomes more differentiated, patterns of class stratification remain deeply entrenched, in part due to class‐based differences in college choice. A qualitative study of 50 Yale students shows the effects of social class, high schools and peers on students’ pathways to college. For students from wealthy and highly educated families, the choice of an Ivy League institution becomes normalized through the inculcated expectations of families, the explicit positioning of schools, and the peer culture. Without these advantages, less‐privileged students more often place elite institutions outside the realm of the possible – in part because of concerns of elitism. These findings suggest that even low‐socioeconomic status students with exceptional academic credentials must overcome substantial hurdles to arrive at an Ivy League university.

Gender, Social Background, and the Choice of College Major in a Liberal Arts Context:

Enduring disparities in choice of college major constitute one of the most significant forms of gender inequality among undergraduate students. The existing literature generally equates major choice with career choice and overlooks possible variation across student populations. This is a significant limitation because gender differences in major choice among liberal arts students, who attend college less for specific career training and more for broader learning objectives, are just as great as among those choosing pre-professional majors. This study addresses this gap by examining how privileged men and women at an elite, liberal arts university select their fields of study. Drawing on in-depth interviews, findings contradict the prevailing assumption of a unitary model of major choice as career choice by revealing a plurality of gendered meanings around choosing a field of study. Majors may play an important part in the construction of an intellectual identity as much as a means of career preparation. How students approach the choice relates to both gender and social background. For privileged students, traditional gendered associations with bodies of knowledge hold salience in their decision making as well as expectations of reproducing future elite family roles. This research also illuminates how gendered processes of choosing fields of study take place in relationship to particular institutional contexts.

Participation without Parity in U.S. Higher Education: Gender, Fields of Study, and Institutional Selectivity

While women now earn more bachelor’s degrees than men in many parts of the world, large gender gaps persist in fields of study, and women remain underrepresented in the most prestigious institutions. This study updates and extends the literature on gender disparities in higher education by comparing the selectivity of the institutions where men and women earn their degrees and then examining the gender segregation of fields of study across different types of universities in the United States. Findings show that men continue to earn degrees at somewhat more selective institutions than women, a pattern that has shifted little over the past 27 years. Further, patterns of gender segregation by field of study continue unabated and are constant across types of institutions. Women’s increased participation in higher education has not resulted in full parity.

The Not-So-Pink Ivory Tower

Soicologist Ann Mullen explores what it means that women now earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees. Rather than seeing this as a sign of a “male crisis” in higher education, this article concludes that the gender integration of higher education is far from complete.

Gender Gaps in Undergraduate Fields of Study: Do College Characteristics Matter?

Despite gender parity in earned bachelor’s degrees, large gender gaps persist across fields of study. The dominant explanatory framework in this area of research assesses how gender differences in individual-level attributes predict gaps in major choice. The authors argue that individualistic accounts cannot provide a complete explanation because they fail to consider the powerful effects of the gendered institutional environments that inform and shape young men’s and women’s choices. The authors propose a cultural-organizational approach that considers how institutional characteristics and cultural contexts on college campuses may influence gendered choices and thus be associated with patterns of gender segregation across fields of study. The results of an analysis of institutional data on all U.S. degree-granting colleges and universities reveal substantial interinstitutional variation in gender segregation. Furthermore, structural and contextual institutional features related to peer culture, curricular focus, institutional commitment to gender equity, and the gender proportionality of the student body correlate with heightened or diminished levels of segregation.