Major’s Effect on Students’ Grades

Lauren Keffler

SO233-01 Research Methods I

Dr. Liu

1
Introduction

In this paper, I intend to research if a student’s major affects their performance in general

education classes. More specifically, I am going to study whether students at liberal art colleges

who major in S.T.E.M. fields receive better grades in general education classes than those who

major in more creative areas (theatre, art, writing, etc.) College students have a variety of options

available to them in regards to major; for example, at Wagner College, there are over forty areas

available to study. Students typically choose based on their interests and expectations for their

future, as well as the type of work they would like to focus on while attending college. A wide-

spread assumption is that those students who seek out more scientific or mathematic studies are

more likely to work hard to receive high grades than others. But every student, regardless of

major, is required to take a certain number of general education classes in all major areas of

study. The focus on these types of classes puts all majors on the same level by eliminating any

specialty classes. At some point, a biology major must take an art class and a theatre major must

take a math class.

As a theatre major, I have always received high grades in my general education classes,

but this is not something that people expect; I often have to prove myself by showing a grade

report. This study will allow me to investigate the assumption that creative students do not take

school seriously. I know several people who wish to study more creative fields, but they are

either discouraged or forbidden by family members who believe they only wish to do so to get

out of doing any traditional schoolwork, such as mathematics. This study could prove that a

student still has to work hard to maintain decent grades, no matter their area of study.

2
First Step of Literary Review: 5 Separate Reviews

Pringle, DuBose, and Yankey (2010) conducted a study on the role that stereotypes play in a

student’s choice of college major. They argue that “among the many reasons for choosing an

academic major are stereotypes that students hold of particular occupations and the degree to

which they believe that their personalities match those stereotypes” (Pringle, et. al., 2010). They

cite Holland's theory of vocational choice (1985), which proposes that people choose careers

where they believe the work environment will adequately match their personalities. In their

background research (which focused mainly on accounting, business, and marketing students)

they found studies with conflicting results on the stereotypical personalities of people in different

fields. Their goal was to find the differences in personality across eight majors (accounting,

computer information systems, economics, finance, hospitality, international business,

management, and marketing) to determine if they coincide with common societal stereotypes of

the occupations to which those majors typically lead; they also hoped to suggest ways in which

the findings might help improve teaching and advising in undergraduate business programs

based on their results.

For this study, data was taken from a more comprehensive study that was titled

“Entrepreneurship Propensity Assessment Project” and largely funded by the Ewing Marion

Kauffman Foundation. In this study, the original researchers collected data through an emailed

questionnaire sent out to 1,053 students who were enrolled in a required sophomore-level

business course at a medium-sized public university in the United States. The email explained

the purpose of the research, promised students that their identities were anonymous, and assured

them that participation was completely optional and would not affect their grade in the class.

3
They received 899 usable responses from the students and the replies were from an almost equal

percentage of male and female students.

The researchers found that international business majors had more achievement motivation than

any other major, and computer information systems (CIS) students had the least; the remaining

six majors had no significant differences. Accounting majors scored the highest in conformity,

with CIS students at the second-highest, international business students at the second-lowest,

economics students at the lowest; the other four majors do not significantly differ from each

other. The final testing showed that the eight majors all had similar levels of creativity, although

the one-way analysis of variance indicated otherwise. Marketing majors were found to be the

most extroverted, with international business and hospitality majors statistically tied for second

place; CIS students scored as the most introverted, followed by accounting majors. There were

no significant differences among the finance, management, and economics majors. Overall, it

was concluded that stereotypes have played a vital role in major/career choice for a long time;

while this practice may help make such an important choice, changes in occupations increasingly

cast doubt upon the accuracy of the process. “The dynamic nature of the business environment

practically guarantees that more change lies ahead. As a result, the likelihood that members of

any profession can be accurately categorized through simplistic stereotypes is wishful thinking at

best” (Pringle, et. al., 2010).

While this study gives an excellent overview of the effect of societal stereotypes on academic

major and career choice, it is limited in its choice of majors to study. The examined majors are

all relatively similar in the wide field of academic study and left out the stereotypically more

creative majors, such as theatre, writing, art, etc. However, it is a good reference point for my

4
research, especially regarding how the study was conducted and the focus on outside influence

on the choice of college major.

Musu-Gillette, Wigfield, Harring, and Eccles (2015) conducted a study that expanded

previous research done on the connections between self-concept of ability in certain areas of

study and motivation to succeed in those areas. They work with the expectancy-value theory, “a

motivational theory that focuses on how individuals’ beliefs and values develop and predict

academic outcomes and choices” (Musu-Gillette, et. al., 2015). However, they were unable to

find any previous research that analyzes the long-term effects that students’ field-specific self-

concepts of ability (especially with mathematics) can have on choices made in these students’

futures, such as choice of college major. They argue that “understanding the long-term

trajectories of changes in motivational constructs in expectancy-value theory may provide insight

into the likelihood of students selecting a certain college major” (Musu-Gillette, et. al., 2015).

This study is grounded in Eccles-Parsons et. al.’s (1983) expectancy-value model, as described

above, as well as several other studies. Eccles and Wigfield (1995) found through observation

that expectancies and self-concepts of ability are strongly related, and Eccles, et. al., 1983

defined what is called the three aspects of task values used in this study (interest value,

importance/attainment value, and utility value). This particular study focuses on students’

valuing of math, which is then differentiated into two different components: importance/

usefulness and interest. The combination of importance and usefulness into one category is

partially due to the previous research (Durik, et. al., 2006; Simpkins, et. al., 2006) that shows the

two components as strongly related. With all of this in mind, the researchers sought to answer

three broad research questions: “(1) How many latent classes represent the trajectories of change

in students’ SCA, interest, and values, and what is the nature or shape of those trajectories of

5
change? (2) How does class membership differ by students’ gender, academic achievement, and

family income? (3) How does class membership relate to students’ choice of a major in college?”

(Musu-Gillette, et. al., 2015).

This study used data collected from a subset of students from the Childhood and Beyond

longitudinal study, which collected data from 12 schools in three different school districts in

southeast Michigan. The data is collected in three waves from three groups of students, with

follow-up surveys afterward. Participants completed the measures each year from 1987 to 1990,

then from 1994 to 1999. The data for this current study is taken only from the oldest group of

students since they were the only ones given a follow-up survey while in college. The data from

this cohort come from the responses of 4th through 6th graders, 10th through 12th graders and

2nd-year college students. Self-concept of ability was measured by “a five-item scale specific to

the domain of math that assessed students’ beliefs about how good they were at math generally,

and in comparison, to other students and other subjects.” Interest in math was measured by “a

three-item scale specific to the domain of math that asked students how interested they were in

math and how much they liked math.” Perceived importance/usefulness of math was measured

by “a four-item scale that assessed whether students thought math was useful and important.”

Finally, students indicated their major in an open-ended item that asked, “What is your college

major?” (Musu-Gillette, et. al., 2015).

Overall, “the findings of this study build on prior correlational research showing that constructs

from expectancy-value theory predict achievement outcomes and choices but add important new

information showing that change in the motivation constructs in this theory across the school

years relates to a major choice that students make during their college years” (Musu-Gillette, et.

al., 2015). This research is helpful to my study because it shows that perception of self-ability in

6
and perceived importance of certain areas, such as S.T.E.M. fields, can directly affect the choice

of college major. Therefore, it can be theorized that outside influence regarding the importance

of certain areas and the necessity to succeed in them can also directly affect the choice of college

major. However, a limitation of this study is that the sample used was quite homogeneous, and

the results may not generalize well to other populations of students.

Moakler and Kim (2014) conducted a study that examined confidence and background

variables (i.e. gender, minority status, parental occupation, etc.) as predictors of the choice to

study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (S.T.E.M.) in college. This study used

the Social Cognitive Career Choice Model (SCCCM) created by Lent et. al. 1994. According to

SCCCM, personal input characteristics consist of gender and racial minority status, and

background contextual affordances consist of precollege academic preparation and parental

income, education, and confidence. The SCCCM comes from “the precepts of social cognitive

career theory (SCCT), which has been widely used in career development and STEM‐related

studies” (Moakler, et. al., 2014). Previous studies with SCCT that focus on the relationship

between career choice and college major choice (i.e Bandura et. al. 1997, 1986, and 1997) have

supported Bandura’s idea that “self‐efficacy and outcome expectations influence interest and

aspirations for career and academic major choices” (Moakler, et. al., 2014).

With this research as groundwork, this study investigated how confidence and demographic

factors are connected to the choice of a S.T.E.M. major, with a focus on U.S. citizen, full‐time

students enrolling into 4‐year colleges and universities. Specifically, the researchers addressed

the following questions: “(1) How do background factors such as gender, minority status,

7
parental socioeconomic status, parents with STEM occupations, and academic preparation affect

a STEM major choice? (2) How does academic confidence affect a STEM major choice? (3)

How does mathematics confidence affect a STEM major choice?” (Moakler, et. al., 2014).

This study was conducted with data taken from a national freshman survey taken by the

Cooperative Institutional Research Program of the Higher Education Research Institute at the

University of California. The survey covered a wide range of student characteristics including

parental income and education, race, and other demographic items; financial aid; secondary

school achievement and activities; educational and career plans; and values, attitudes, beliefs,

and self‐concept. The researchers of this study analyzed the data of 335,842 first‐time, full‐time,

U.S. citizen students in 4‐year colleges and universities that were taken in 2003. The dependent

variable was S.T.E.M. major choice and the independent variables were self-efficacy (measured

in self-confidence in mathematics ability and academic ability), pre-college academic

preparation (divided into the variables of high school GPA, SAT score, and weekly hours spent

studying/doing homework), and parental SES (income, education, and occupation).

The results showed several positive indicators of S.T.E.M. major choice, including having

parents with a S.T.E.M. occupation, having higher SAT scores, having a higher high school

GPA, having spent more hours studying/doing homework, being a racial minority, having higher

academic confidence, and having higher mathematics confidence. “Consistent with previous

studies and the social phenomenon of a gender gap in STEM, this study found that being female

was consistently shown as a negative predictor for student STEM major choice” (Moakler, et.

al., 2014). This study helps with my research because it further strengthens the idea that the

8
choice of college major can be directly affected by outside and environmental influences.

However, a limitation of this study is that it does not address S.T.E.M. degree persistence or

completion, nor a S.T.E.M. career choice upon graduation. It also does not account for students

who transfer to S.T.E.M. majors during their time in college.

Sjoquist and Winters (2015) conducted a study on whether recently adopted state merit aid

programs have affected college major decisions, with a focus on S.T.E.M. fields, and how that

affects other majors. In their background research, they focus on four papers that consider the

effects of financial aid on the choice of college major. Stater, et. al., 2011 argue that increased

financial aid “lowers the price of majors that offer current consumption benefits and encourages

student substitution toward such majors.” Therefore, financial aid can be viewed as a “transitory

income shock” that leads to more “current-consumption-oriented majors.” Since merit-based

financial aid is given to students with better academic backgrounds, his findings could reflect

unmeasured student characteristics that affect the eventual choice of college major. Rothstein, et.

al., 2011 conducted a study that suggested that student loan debt might also affect the choice of

college major (and eventual occupation) due to “debt aversion and credit constraints.” Since

financial aid decreases student loan debt, this could be a factor that influences students to work

for merit-based aid, and eventually, choose a more academic-oriented major. Cornwell, et. al.,

2005 found that a certain merit-based aid program in Georgia had a positive effect on the

probability of being an education major, though it statistically did not affect other majors. They

suggest that the GPA requirement of the program could cause students to focus on maintaining

that GPA and choosing majors they believe will be easier to maintain. Finally, Zhang, et. al.,

9
2011 investigated the effect of merit-based programs in Florida and Georgia on S.T.E.M.

majors. The results yielded no statistically significant effect of the program on the percentage of

S.T.E.M. majors. However, this research is based on annual statewide totals of S.T.E.M.

degrees. The use of “aggregate data on degree conferrals” is problematic because merit-based

programs affect where students attend college and have been shown “to increase the average

quality of students who stay in state for college” (Sjoquist, et. al., 2015).

This study uses the list of majors considered “S.T.E.M.” from the US Immigration and Customs

Enforcement. The researchers followed a treatment and control research design implemented

“via a difference-in-differences regression framework” (Sjoquist, et. al., 2015). The treatment

group included individuals exposed to a broad-based state merit aid program upon graduation

from high school, and the control group contained the individuals who were not. They identified

nine merit-based financial aid programs that are relatively significant as measured by “the

eligibility criteria, the number of students in the program, and the size of the reward” (Sjoquist,

et. al., 2015). They then compared the number of S.T.E.M. majors from states with strong merit-

based aid programs to the number in states with no merit-based aid programs.

The results suggested that “a strong merit aid program reduces the probability that an individual

graduates from college with a S.T.E.M. major” (Sjoquist, et. al., 2015). They also imply that it is

males, not females, who experience a decrease in the probability of earning a S.T.E.M. major

due to the adoption of a strong merit aid program. “Thus, merit aid may have a greater effect on

males than females because males are more likely to switch away from S.T.E.M. to increase

10
their chances of keeping their merit scholarship” (Sjoquist, et. al., 2015). These results help my

research because they offer an opposing view to my other sources: that some outside influences

could have a negative effect on the choice of a S.T.E.M. major. However, this study is limited in

a similar way to the study by Moakler, et. al., 2014 in that it also does not account for students

who transfer to S.T.E.M. majors during their time in college.

11
Theory

At most liberal arts colleges, students are expected to take a certain amount of general education

classes that are not related to their major; this affects all students regardless of their major. We

know that S.T.E.M. majors must at some point take non-S.T.E.M. classes, and vice versa. The

usual societal assumption is that students majoring in S.T.E.M. fields are overall smarter and

perform better academically. It follows that they would therefore be assumed to perform better in

general education classes than non-S.T.E.M. majors.

However, the literary reviews above suggest that the choice of a S.T.E.M. major is sometimes

influenced by factors outside of the student’s interest. Parental expectations, self-perception of

ability, and the possibility of financial aid all may play a role in such a choice. Therefore, it can

be assumed that some S.T.E.M. majors are not always passionate about their field of study. We

know that spending a lot of time focusing on something one doesn’t care about can cause

increased frustration and stress, and a lack of motivation. On the other hand, this could suggest

that non-S.T.E.M. majors generally feel more motivated to work and therefore would be more

interested in general education classes. As a result, non-S.T.E.M. students could actually perform

better in these classes due to higher motivation and less stress.

H: If a student at a liberal arts college majors in a non-S.T.E.M. field, they will perform better

than S.T.E.M. majors in general education classes.

In this hypothesis, college major is the independent variable and academic performance in

general education classes (measured by letter grades in these types of classes) is the dependent

variable.

12
References

Bartolj, T., & Polanec, S. (2012). College major choice and ability: Why is general ability not

enough? Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 996–1016.

David L. Sjoquist, & John V. Winters. (2015). State Merit Aid Programs and College Major: A

Focus on STEM. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(4), 973.

Moakler, M. W., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College Major Choice in STEM: Revisiting Confidence

and Demographic Factors. Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128–142.

Musu-Gillette, L. E., Wigfield, A., Harring, J. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2015). Trajectories of Change

in Students’ Self-Concepts of Ability and Values in Math and College Major

Choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(4), 343–370.

Pringle, C. D., DuBose, P. B., & Yankey, M. D. (2010). Personality Characteristics and Choice

of Academic Major: Are Traditional Stereotypes Obsolete? College Student

Journal, 44(1), 131–142.

13