Aee Article p4

Advances in Economics Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, Spring 2023, pp.
4–25
Understanding sex differences when

majoring in economics: what little we know,
reasons for knowledge gaps, and a
research agenda of unanswered questions
Sam Allgood*
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
KimMarie McGoldrick
University of Richmond, Virginia, USA
We provide a comprehensive review of what research on U.S. students and institutions has
revealed about women’s decisions to persist in the economics major, and we identify key ave-
nues for future research. We first document gender differences in introductory economics
course enrolments and persistence in the major. We then explore commonly cited reasons
for this gender gap in economics, including issues within the profession (chilly climate),
the major (role models, quantitative emphasis), and classroom environment (grade sensitiv-
ity, relevance). Throughout this review we identify gaps in the existing research, focusing on
the lack of generalizability of existing findings. Lack of generalizability arises because of the
use of convenience data, including single institution administrative retrospective data. Based
on this background, we offer a research agenda that would greatly enhance our understand-
ing of why female students attrite at higher rates at each step of the major.
Keywords: gender, economics education, economics major
JEL codes: A22, J16
Gender differences in economic education have been documented long before there
have been journals dedicated to the field of study.1 In a 1979 survey of studies estimat-
ing male–female differences in economic education, Siegfried notes that gaps in our
understanding remain as a result of the methodological “deficiencies” associated
with the use of gender as a control variable. The Journal of Economic Education
has published over 50 articles since 1969 with a significant gender focus. Despite
this long history of research, there remain important gaps in our understanding of
gender differences. We provide a review of gender differences in the undergraduate
economics experience and identify key avenues for future research. We focus on
the undergraduate major in the United States, but we note gender differences at all
levels and across countries for which data is available.2
* Corresponding author: email: sallgood1@unl.edu.

1. Bach and Saunders (1965), for example, predates the establishment of the Journal of
Economic Education in 1969.
2. We acknowledge that gender and sex are not the same in that gender is a social construct
and sex is biological. Nonetheless, we use the terms interchangeably as we do not know if the
studies we consider differentiate between these terms.
© 2023 The Author Journal compilation © 2023 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
The Lypiatts, 15 Lansdown Road, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 2JA, UK
and The William Pratt House, 9 Dewey Court, Northampton MA 01060-3815, USA
Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM
via free access
Understanding sex differences when majoring in economics 5
Women are underrepresented at all levels within the discipline, a fact that has persisted
for decades. Studies documenting the gender gap in introductory courses consistently
place the female enrolment at less than 50%, with many documenting percentages
between 40% and 45%, across all institution types in the United States (see, e.g., Rask
and Tiefenthaler 2008; Main and Ost 2014; Emerson and McGoldrick 2019). The gender
disparity grows by graduation, with the percentage of bachelor degrees awarded in the
United States to females peaking at 35% in 2003 and then falling below 30% for most
institutional categories thereafter (Bayer and Wilcox 2019; Siegfried 2021).
The gender gap in undergraduate economics also manifests in other countries, although
data availability limits the extent to which comparisons can be made. Based on a sample of
over 185,000 students who enrol at universities in the UK higher education system, Tonin
and Wahba (2015) documented that only 27% of those enrolled in an economics degree
program were female even though 57% of all enrolled students were female. About one-
third of the degrees conferred in economics throughout the 1990s in Canada were to
women, although their overall university enrolment was about 57%. In Australia, about
40% of the economics degrees awarded during the 1990s went to women while the
proportion of female university students increased from 53% to 59% over this decade
(Siegfried and Round 2001). Using more recent Australian data (2001–2007), Round
and Shanahan (2010) report that the share of females earning a degree in economics
grew slightly to between 41% and 45%. Universities in Mexico experienced increases
in female enrolment in economics, from about 25% to 40% between 1980 and 2007
(Duval-Hernandez and Villagomez 2011).
DOCUMENTING GENDER DIFFERENCES
We document enrolment patterns at the introductory course level, and differences in

persistence through taking another course and majoring.
Introductory economics enrolment

Female enrolment in degree-granting post-secondary institutions climbed above 50% in
1979 and has been steadily increasing since. Most recently available figures place female
enrolment in 2020 at 58.6%.3 Despite their growing presence in colleges and universities,
female students neither enrol in introductory economics courses at the same rate nor
has the growth pattern of their enrolment mirrored that of institutional enrolment figures.
Reported enrolment percentages of female students in introductory economics courses are
below 50%, consistent over time and by institution type. For example, several studies sug-
gest that the percentage of females ranges from 44% to 49% at research institutions
(Elzinga and Melaugh 2009; Main and Ost 2014; Owen 2010), 40% at large schools
with engineering programs (Emerson and McGoldrick 2019), 43% at mid-sized state
schools (Hadsell 2020), 46% at liberal arts colleges (Rask and Tiefenthaler 2008), and
47% at Canadian institutions (Anderson, Benjamin and Fuss 1994).
Persistence
Patterns of enrolment and major at graduation for female students are clear indicators
of what is commonly referred to as the “leaky pipeline.” In general, studies show that
3. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_303.10.asp.

via free access
6 Advances in Economics Education, Vol. 2 No. 1
“Females are less likely to take a principles course, less likely to persist in studying
economics beyond an introductory course, and less likely to major in economics”
(Emerson, McGoldrick and Mumford 2012, p. 350). The result is clear. Analyzing
data aggregated across all institutions, although 57.3% of graduating students between
2011 and 2015 were female, only 31.3% of economics majors were female (Bayer and
Wilcox 2019). Framed differently, 3.3% of graduating males were economics majors
compared to 1.1% of graduating females. These results are consistent across all types
of institutions.
The persistence story begins with introductory economics courses. Anderson, Benjamin
and Fuss (1994) find that a majority of students in introductory classes (54%) were male,
and that males were significantly less likely to drop the course. Stock et al. (2013) find that
female students are 5% more likely than males to drop the introductory course. Dynan and
Rouse (1997), Jensen and Owen (2001), and Rask and Tienfenthaler (2008) find similar
results at three separate institutions. As Jensen and Owen note, “male students were
more likely to continue in economics, to become encouraged during the first semester
of economics, and to major in economics” (p. 330).
In one of the few multi-institution studies, Emerson, McGoldrick and Mumford
(2012) identify patterns based on 587,991 students at 11 engineering schools.4 Similar
to other studies, 49% of male students took an introductory economics course versus
38% of female students. Of those who took introductory economics, 2.7% of males
and 1.9% of females took an intermediate course. However, the gender differential
reverses at graduation. About 20% of males and 23.3% of females that took the intro-
ductory course ultimately graduated with an economics major.5
Common reasons for the gender gap

In this section we outline primary reasons given for the gender gap based on the cur-
rent research. As will become clear, no single reason dominates and any approach to
closing the gap will have to take this into account.
Issues within the profession

It would be naïve to think that broader gender issues within the profession are not related
to why we fail to see more women in our classrooms. Some issues are obvious: a dearth
of female faculty means few female role models. Other issues may be less obvious. For
example, it may be that the aggressive or competitive environment that economists bring
to seminars and other settings translate to how they conduct their classrooms.
Graduate school is a trying time for most students, but research suggests it is even
more so for female students. Colander and Holmes (2007), using data from 231 grad-
uate students at seven elite PhD programs, report that over half of female graduate stu-
dents, compared to a quarter of male students, find the coursework to be very stressful,
4. The MIDFIELD database on which this study is based, is comprised entirely of engineer-
ing schools.
5. Switching into the economics major is common (Fournier and Sass 2000). Few studies identify
gender differences in these trends. After controlling for grades in intermediate economics, Asarta
and Butters (2012) find that females are not more or less likely to switch into economics. Emerson
and McGoldrick (2019) find that a greater proportion of female students stayed in their declared
major at the time of principles, opting not to switch into economics.

via free access
and female graduate students are 23 percentage points less likely to choose to attend
graduate school if they were currently making that decision.6
Given their views of graduate school, it is not surprising that women choose differ-
ent career paths. Women graduate students are less likely to say they plan to pursue
academic careers (Colander and Holmes 2007). Some evidence bears this out.
Based on analysis of CSWEP’s7 survey of doctoral programs, males coming from
top-20 programs were more likely to place at PhD-granting departments whereas
women migrated to public sector jobs (Chevalier 2021, p. 757). It should be noted
that not all research finds a similar result. Boustan and Langan (2019) combine
CSWEP survey data with their own hand-collected data and find no sex difference
in the likelihood of placement at a U.S. PhD-granting institution. Of course, this is
all descriptive and does not identify a cause of potential differences. Women may sim-
ply differ in their employment preferences, but it is also possible that such preferences
are partially a function of the environment in academic economics.
A broad view: the major

The principles class is the gateway class to economics, which explains why it attracts
attention when discussing issues of diversity within the profession. Yet, there is evidence
that female students arrive on college campus less interested in economics. Tonin and
Wahba (2015) use data from the UK to analyze a 50% random sample of all college appli-
cations in 2008. They find that female applicants are less likely to apply for a degree in
economics. This result holds even for females satisfying the math requirements to
apply to economics. This suggests that, to close the gap in economics, work must be
done to enhance interest prior to their arrival on campus. This matters because initial
major matters. Owen and Hagstrom (2021) find that students at a liberal arts school
expressing an interest in majoring in economics at the time of admission are 36 percentage
points more likely to express interest after a second economics course. Similarly,
Ahlstrom and Asarta (2019) find that male and female students with a declared economics
major at the time they entered the institution were more likely to persist to the second intro-
ductory course (macroeconomics) and those having a declared economics major at intro-
ductory macroeconomics were more likely to take intermediate microeconomics.
Economics seminars and graduate education, as previously noted, can be viewed as
competitive and aggressive. If this culture permeates the undergraduate classroom, then
students on the margin may feel even more marginalized. In our discussion of belonging
below, we will see that it is not uncommon for female students to feel less like they
belong. One way to counter this is to purposefully create a cooperative classroom envir-
onment by employing team-based and other cooperative learning approaches. Espey
(2018) analyzes 114 teams with almost 700 students in 17 introductory microeconomics
classes. She introduces team-based learning and finds that the level of cooperation
6. It is possible that some of these attitudes are driven by experiences with the economics
seminar culture. Doleac, Hengel and Pancotti (2021) find that women are less likely to be invited
to give a seminar. Dupas et al. (2021) find that women are asked more questions and that those
questions are more likely to be categorized as patronizing or hostile.
7. CSWEP stands for the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of
Women in the Economics Profession. It “serves professional women economists by monitoring
their progress and promoting their careers.” Its activities include data collection, mentoring
workshops, and coordinating sessions at national and regional meetings in the United States.
See https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/committees/cswep/about for additional information.

via free access
within teams improves the performance of female students and has no measurable effect
on the performance of male students.
A “traditional” explanation for women not pursuing quantitative fields, such as
economics, is a disparity in math preparation.8 But is there a difference? According
to the College Board (2016), critical reading scores of males (495) taking the SAT
were almost identical to those of women (493). The math section saw a larger differ-
ence with males scoring 30 points higher (524 versus 494). Male test takers are over
50% more likely to score over 700 on the math section.
What do these differences mean for the economics major? Goldin (2015) finds that
math aptitude does not appear to explain differences in major choice. As previously
noted, Tonin and Wahba (2015) find that female students with a needed math require-
ment were still less likely to choose an economics major, suggesting it is not math that is
keeping them out. Emerson, McGoldrick and Siegfried (2018) find that a one-semester
calculus requirement for economics majors increases the number of female students, but
a two-semester requirement has the opposite effect at PhD-granting universities while
still attracting more female majors at liberal arts colleges. However, Ahlstrom and Asarta
(2019) report that, conditional on having completed intermediate microeconomics, male
students with higher SAT math scores have a greater likelihood of securing a Bachelor
of Science (BS) in economics and a lower probability of minoring in economics. Higher
SAT math scores for females decrease their likelihood of graduating with a Bachelor of
Arts (BA) in economics.
Another part of the explanation may be misperceptions about what economics is and
what economists do, as well as a lack of understanding of the career options available to
those with an undergraduate degree in economics. A most common question for econom-
ics faculty is: “What can I do with an economics degree?” Some economists see this pro-
blem as students equating economics and finance (see O’Connor 2022). This may be an
issue at certain schools, but it is not the issue for students at institutions that offer an
undergraduate business degree. In fact, a student may have to be convinced that they
can work in finance with an economics degree.
All of this occurs even though the empirical evidence suggests that economics majors
earn more than most other majors. Building on the work of Black et al. (2003), Carrol et al.
(2014) find that even controlling for type of job, demographic characteristics, and loca-
tion, women with economics degrees earn more than women without them. Given the
approach economists take when modelling decisions like choosing majors, it is expected
that the wage premium should be eliminated over time, ceteris paribus. Yet neither the
premium goes away nor are more women attracted to the major, suggesting that some-
thing other than earnings (e.g., expected work–life balance) is driving this decision at
the margin.
A narrow view: the economics classroom

There is plenty of documentation to show that if you put a male/female dummy vari-
able in a regression with some measure of grade or test score as the dependent variable,
it will reveal lower performance for female students (Anderson, Benjamin and Fuss
8. It may be that women do not choose to pursue economics because of a lack of female role
models and peers. Canaan and Mouganie (2021), for example, analyze data on advisors at the
University of Beirut relating to over 1,300 students. They find that having a female advisor
decreases first-year major dropout and increases the proportion of women graduating with a
degree in economics.

via free access
1994; Allgood, Walstad and Siegfried 2015). In fact, Ballard and Johnson (2005)
found that female students are less likely than male students to believe they will be
successful. Such expectations may be “self-fulfilling” as they also find a positive rela-
tionship between expected grade and actual grade. For some, this lower expectation
may be set in high school as taking economics in high school is negatively related
to performance in college-level introductory classes, an effect that is larger for women.
While there is an abundance of literature documenting a negative coefficient for
females across a wide range of performance outcomes, the question remains as to why
this is the case. It is possible that a “relevance, belonging and growth” mindset (RBG),
as well as engagement, in the economics classroom provides some explanation. RBG
has developed out of the educational psychology literature in identifying the “factors
[that] are related to college success and are impacted by practices of faculty and depart-
ment (National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine 2017, p. 294)” (Bayer
et al. 2020, p. 294). Relevance refers to the degree to which the materials used in a
course matter for a student’s own life. Belonging is a measure of how connected students
feel to their peers in a class or a major and the department in which is it housed. If a
student believes that their ability in a subject is predetermined and not able to change,
they have a fixed rather than a growth mindset. Bayer et al. (2020) survey students in
introductory economics and create an index for each RBG category. They find that
each measure of RBG is lower for women than for men, and that women have a
lower aggregate level of RBG. Belonging may be tied to academic success. McEwan
et al. (2021) analyze major choice at an all women-college, and they found that students
are 18% more likely to choose an economics major when earning a higher letter grade. A
sense of belonging might also be influenced by classroom conditions and materials. Not
only are women students frequently in classes that are disproportionately male and dis-
proportionately taught by males, but their economics textbooks either ignore women or
portray them in traditional roles (Stevenson and Zlotnik 2018).
The idea of a “growth mindset” is one that might be less familiar to economists.
Dweck (2006, p. 7) defines a growth mindset as one where a person has “the belief
that your basic qualities and things you can cultivate through your efforts, your stra-
tegies, and help from others” can have an important impact on learning. Bayer et al.
(2020) report only 30% of female students strongly agreed with the statement
“While taking the course, I believed I could learn the material” as compared to 44%
of male students. This suggests that female students are more likely to have a fixed
mindset.9 A student with a fixed mindset would view a relatively low grade as a signal
that they are unable to do economics. Using data from 1,800 students at a selective
research institution, Owen (2010) finds that women earning an A in their first econom-
ics class are more likely to major in economics, and she finds no similar effect for men.
Goldin (2015) finds that women not getting an A are more likely to leave the major.
Only 27% of females, compared to 41% of males, that earn a B+ continue to major in
economics. Main and Ost (2014), however, do not find that women are more sensitive
to grades than are men in a sample of over 2,100 introductory economics students.
Interventions/courses/pedagogy/programs to increase gender diversity

In this section we provide an overview of research associated with interventions that
might be loosely categorized as information nudges, new courses offerings, active
9. Dweck (2006) describes this as believing that your qualities are set in stone.

via free access
learning pedagogy, and providing role models and other department-wide interven-
tions. We focus our review primarily on studies that include analysis that goes beyond
controlling for sex, summarizing empirical studies that isolate treatment impacts by
sex. While the overall focus of this paper is on increasing participation of women in
the major, we include performance outcomes in this section as elsewhere we note find-
ings that indicate differences in grade sensitivity by sex. Thus, differences in perfor-
mance outcomes might ultimately translate into persistence differences and suggest
a fruitful avenue for future research.
Information provision
Information provision that occurs at the start of college is typically intended to help
students understand what the economics major entails and how a degree can benefit
them in terms of career opportunities and earnings. Information provision during a
course is often intended to motivate effort. Students may also benefit from information
after a course is complete, learning about their grade relative to those of their peers in
order to better interpret their performance and potential success of continuing in the
major. “Nudges” (interventions designed to motivate a change in behaviour in a par-
ticular manner) can be categorized according to the timing of information provision:
pre-enrolment, during a course, or at the end of a course.
Bayer, Bhanot and Lozano (2019) use email communications with incoming first-year
students to increase the number taking economics their first semester. They divided their
sample into a control (no email communication) group and two differing treatments. One
treatment group received two emails that encouraged recipients to take a course in eco-
nomics, and the second group received similar emails that also included information
showcasing the “diversity of research and researchers in economics” (ibid., p. 111).
While the welcome plus diversity nudge increased the likelihood of completing an eco-
nomics course by 3%, they found an insignificant impact of either treatment for the
female subsample.
Informational nudges that occur during a course can also highlight information
about economics and the major to entice more students to persist. Chambers et al.
(2021) use text messages to send enhanced information describing the major to stu-
dents enrolled in introductory economics. All enrolled students were sent messages,
but texts sent to the treatment group also included links to newly created informational
modules that included videos and infographics. They do not find a statistically signif-
icant impact of treatment on a female’s intention to take more economics or to major in
economics, but the treatment did have a positive and significant impact on female per-
ceptions about how welcoming economics is as a major.
Pugatch and Schroeder (2021) and Halim, Powers and Thornton (2022) use student
informational nudges that focus on careers and financial returns to the major to stu-
dents near the end of both introductory micro and macroeconomics courses. Pugatch
and Schroeder report several findings, but the overall result is that they only find a
positive, statistically significant effect for males. Similarly, Halim, Powers and Thorn-
ton (2022) find that their nudges had no significant impact on women’s choices. How-
ever, female students who earned a grade of one-third better than expected were about
5.5 percentage points more likely to take another economics course.
In what might be argued as the most extensive study of information provision and
its impact on persistence, Li (2018) investigates the impact of multiple timed nudges.
On average, the treatment did not have a significant impact on females’ propensity to
major. Analyzing gender subgroups reveals a significant increase in the likelihood of

via free access
treated (encouragement if above median grade) females majoring in economics if they

were either freshman (6 percentage points) or sophomores (12 percentage points).
Treated male students (receiving information but not the additional encouragement)
generated significantly lower likelihood of declaring an economics major (by 2.7 per-
centage points) and this result was driven by males with below-median grades. Similar
result patterns were found for the impact of the treatment, both the number of courses
(intensive margin) and whether any additional courses were taken (extensive margin).
Pedagogy
While studies measuring the impact of pedagogic interventions on student outcomes
are more common than either incremental or extensive curricular overhauls, not all
control for gender, and few include an analysis that might identify sex differences
in outcomes of interest. Here again we include studies that fall short of measuring
impacts on course-taking and majoring in economics as they provide a basis for future
research on pedagogic innovations that investigate sex differentials in persistence.
Experiments
Classroom experiments are the most studied pedagogic technique in economics, but
most studies only include gender as a control variable (with no interaction terms).
Two notable exceptions provide mixed evidence as to whether outcomes differ by
gender.
Emerson and Taylor (2004) use a sample of introductory microeconomics students
to determine whether experiments enhance learning relative to lecture courses. While
experiments generate positive and significant increases in TUCE scores (post-pre) and
the gap-closing TUCE measure, they do not have a significant impact on course
grades. Further, they find that while male students earn higher scores than females
in the lecture version of the course, “this gender advantage disappears for students
in the experiments sections” (ibid., p. 689). Emerson and English (2016) extend this
work to investigate if using more experiments in class yields better learning outcomes.
Using a sample of students across many years of introductory microeconomics
courses, they find a positive, decreasing impact of the number of experiments con-
ducted on course score, but they find no significant difference of the extensive use
of experiments by gender.
Cooperative learning
Much of the literature associated with cooperative learning is descriptive, identifying
key tenets and providing examples of implementation (see, e.g., Bartlett 1995;
Maier and Keenan 1994; Maier, McGoldrick and Simkins 2011; McGoldrick et al.
2010). Of the empirical studies measuring efficacy and impact on attitudes (Marbur-
ger 2005; Yamarik 2007; Emerson, English and McGoldrick 2015, 2016, 2018) only
one provides insight into gender differences associated with cooperative learning
interventions. Emerson, English and McGoldrick (2015) compare student outcomes
in a cooperative learning class (think-pair-share) to those in a lecture environment
with identical independent problem-solving exercises. While they find no perfor-
mance differences associated with the pedagogy overall (suggesting that the

via free access
problem-solving nature of the exercises is more important than the mechanism by

which they are implemented), they find that females in cooperative learning sections
earned higher course scores than males.
Team-based learning
Team-based learning (TBL) is a carefully constructed approach that includes purpose-
fully constructed cooperative learning groups, pre/during/post class accountability, and
structured engagement activities (Ruder, Maier and Simkins 2021). In one of the few
studies that analyzes outcomes for courses other than introductory undergraduate eco-
nomics, Hettler (2015) includes students across principles courses and (undergraduate
and MBA level) quantitative methods courses. They find a small positive and signifi-
cant impact of TBL on course grade, but TBL had no gender differential impact.
As noted above, Espey (2018) investigates whether team composition impacted
either team or individual performance outcomes using 114 teams in a TBL version
of an introductory microeconomics course. She considers several mechanisms by
which teams can impact outcomes: team heterogeneity, level of team participation,
and amount of collaboration within teams. Espey finds a significantly positive impact
on graded in-class team activities the higher the percentage of females in the group.
The result differs for the impact of team composition on final exam grades, with
gender-balanced teams earning higher grades by about three percentage points in com-
parison to single-gender groups. However, replicating the analysis separately for male-
majority and female-majority team samples reveals that this result only holds for the
male-majority team sample. Teams that were identified as more cooperative (via peer
evaluation surveys) generated positive and significant impacts (about 2%) on females’
final examination scores.
Flipped classrooms
While the flipped classroom approach may have originated with Lage and Treglia
(1996), it has continued to evolve and has been much studied at the introductory
course level. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that female students perform better
in flipped classrooms. Caviglia-Harris (2016) uses a quasi-experimental design to
compare traditionally taught courses and two versions of a flipped course (partial
and full) in microeconomics principles. Although both versions of the flipped course
increased scores on the final examination, neither had a significant differential impact
by sex. In another quasi-experimental design study consisting of students across two
flipped and two control sections of a principles of microeconomics course over a three-
year period, Craft and Linask (2020) analyze measures of performance throughout and
at the end of the course. They find no significant differences by gender for the flipped
class in comparison to the traditional lecture for all measures: graded problem-solving
questions, the final exam, course grade, and TUCE post-test gap-closing measures.
Role models and department-wide interventions

Many studies rely on administrative data to identify correlating factors in attempt
to explain why women do not persist in economics. For example, studies identifying
gender-specific role model effects using instructor gender as a determinant of

via free access
performance, course selection, and/or major choice (Bettinger and Long 2005; Carrell,
Page and West 2010; Griffith 2014; Hoffmann and Oreopoulos 2009; Rask and Bailey
2002) do not always identify results specifically for economics.
Porter and Serra (2020) do not rely on administrative data. They investigate the role
model effect on persistence using a modest intervention. Two female alumni conduct
15-minute discussions of their experiences as an economics major, their career paths
and aspirations, and how their major contributed to their success. The role model inter-
vention was found to significantly increase the likelihood of women enrolling in inter-
mediate microeconomics (by 11 percentage points), of taking another economics
course (by 14 percentage points), and in majoring in economics (by 8 percentage
points). Females in the treatment pool who did ultimately take intermediate micro-
economics performed as well as those in the control group, suggesting that the treat-
ment was not attracting a potentially weaker pool of students. Males were unaffected
by the treatment across all measures.
PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING STUDIES
Research in economic education has a common set of shortcomings that the field must
address moving forward. This is not unique to economic education, and many of the
issues researchers face are not uncommon to other fields of study. We outline a num-
ber of these issues and relate them to research discussed above. What follows should
not be viewed as a refutation or condemnation of past research. We have learned much
over the last few decades, but if we want to make gains in the science of teaching and
learning in economics, there are improvements we must make.
Generalizability
Lack of generalizability arises from researchers using convenience data assets, typically
their own classes and/or those of a colleague at a single institution. However, the “same”
course is taught in different environments/institutions (i.e., incredibly large and very
small class sizes) and to different types of students across these institutions (based
on aptitude, socio-economic, and religious background, to name a few). Whether econ-
omics is “hard” depends on the context. For example, economics might not be a rela-
tively difficult major at MIT.
Each of the studies on the efficacy of nudges is conducted at a single institution,
generating questions about generalizability of results across institutional and student
characteristics. For example, Owen and Hagstrom (2021) work with a sample drawn
from a small, liberal arts school. Ideally, we would see researchers across institutions
working together to collect data. In some cases, there is an advantage that a particular
institution or population provides. As mentioned above, McEwan et al. (2021) study
students at an all-female school. While this limits generalizability, it allows them to
eliminate the potential that having male students in the classroom impacts female
grade sensitivity.
Administrative retrospective data

One method for increasing sample sizes is to use administrative data or other retro-
spective data sets. Goldin (2015) and Asarta and Butters (2012) use administrative

via free access
data from single institutions. Larger sample sizes are important, but single institutions
still make it difficult to generalize results. Emerson, McGoldrick and Mumford (2012)
use the MIDFIELD data set, which aggregates data across about a dozen engineer-
oriented schools. Astorne-Figari and Speer (2019) use the NLYS and Walstad and
Bosshardt (2019) use Bachelorette and Beyond. These multi-institution data sets
increase generalizability by including schools with different characteristics and differ-
ent types of students.
Multi-institution data sets are not without costs as they typically only provide data
at the macro level. They generally do not have data regarding who is in the classroom
or what is happening in the classroom. That is, one might know the student character-
istics at the institution, but no information about the characteristics of students in a
given class. In addition, the data sets do not provide information about the faculty
member teaching the class or how the class is taught. As a result, these data are pri-
marily useful for identifying overall patterns, but, on their own, they do not lend to
identifying causal relations.
Theoretical foundation
Theory provides a way of understanding the mechanism one is studying. This can be
essential for creating hypotheses and the empirical strategy to properly test them.
Allgood, Walstad and Siegfried (2015) provide a simple model of faculty and stu-
dent choice that illustrates how student choice can complicate attempts to under-
stand how classroom changes impact outcomes. For example, suppose a professor
decides to start grading assignments that were previously not graded. This would
only generate more student learning if it created an incentive to put more effort
into doing the assignment. Thus, the change impacts student learning by generating
more effort from students. Similarly, consider a change in pedagogy that enables
students to more quickly turn study time into knowledge or learning. Such a change
means a student can learn more given the same amount of time but it also means the
students can learn the same about with less time. That is, the change might result in
less effort from the student. As a result, if the student does choose less effort, the
student’s grade or amount of learning will not change even though the innovation
is effective in helping students learn the material more efficiently.10 Unfortunately,
effort is difficult to measure, and it is an omitted variable in most studies. Theory
helps identify the mechanisms at work and what is relevant for empirical work,
such as effort in this case.
Treatment size
Pouring a bucket of water on a house fire is unlikely to have much effect, not because
water will not extinguish a fire, but because it is not enough water. It is also the case
that some studies provide too small of a treatment to garner a measurable effect. This
may be true of many of the nudge research papers. Chambers et al. (2021) and
Halim, Powers and Thornton (2022) send emails and letters to provide information.
It is possible that information provision is important for shaping student choice, but
the amount and timing of information may be just as important as what information
10. Allgood (2001) shows a similar result graphically.

via free access
is provided. A similar comment can be made for the work of Bayer, Bhanot and
Lozano (2019). If a study finds a small, or non-, effect, is this due to the nature
of the treatment or the magnitude of the treatment?
Measurement
There are numerous measurement issues that arise when conducting economic educa-
tion research. Some of these issues can be addressed with careful study design, but
others are beyond the control of the researcher. A researcher should make great effort
to correct what they can and to consider how their research results are affected by the
measurement problems beyond their control.
Research typically includes a dummy variable to indicate who received treatment
and who did not. But we do not know the extent of treatment received by a member
of the treatment group. In a nudge that involves showing videos, sending emails, or
sending letters, there is no measure of how much of that information is actually pro-
cessed. Thus, the amount of treatment is inherently mismeasured.
Furthermore, the dummy variable approach often does not tell us why a treatment
works or does not work. What is relatively common across nudge studies is that they
do not identify what students actually know about the major, its difficulty, and career
opportunities before the intervention is conducted. The researchers are assuming what
students do and do not know or perceive about the major, and they base an interven-
tion on that assumption.
Some studies measure outcomes using performance on an exam or a subset of exam
questions; some use semester grades or scores on the TUCE; some use grades in later
classes or persistence in the field; and others try to measure attitudes towards the
class(es) they took or economics overall. What is the correct outcome to achieve? If
students do not show a measurable gain in learning or knowledge due to an interven-
tion but take more classes, was the intervention successful?
In some cases, it is simply difficult to measure important variables. If the class-
room environment or climate is important to a given outcome, how does one accu-
rately measure that? Perhaps a class with almost all male students and a male
instructor is conducted with a more inclusive environment than one with more
female students and a female instructor. The variables that would be measured
(male-to-female ratio and sex of the instructor) are proxies for what the researcher
really wants to know. Surveys of students require them to be willing and able to hon-
estly depict their view of the classroom. Some studies rely on declared intentions by
students to take more classes or to major as their outcome measure of interest
because it takes more researcher effort to track actual student behaviour over time.
This is problematic to the extent that intentions differ from actual behaviour.
ROADMAP FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We offer specific research questions that might help fill in the identified knowledge
gaps. We remind the reader that future gender studies should strive for result general-
izability and the identification of causation over correlation. As such, studies should be
based on large samples, over multiple institutions, and be grounded in a theoretical
perspective to provide insight into why such differences exist. We organize our agenda
to mimic the preceding presentation of topics.

via free access
Documenting gender differences

Introductory courses
Even though studies of introductory economics courses are quite prevalent, much has yet
to be learned about gender differences in outcomes and behaviours of enrolled students.
• Why are women less likely to take more courses after the introductory course
than their male counterparts?
Even with all the research on this topic, the question remains unanswered. Most stu-
dies use administrative data to identify gender gaps in course-taking behaviours con-
trolling for demographic and environmental characteristics and thus cannot provide
insight into why course-taking behaviours differ by gender.
• Does the format and order of introductory courses impact gender differences in
persistence?
Much of the identified difference is measured at institutions with a traditional two-
semester course sequence. One avenue for exploration is the degree to which choices
are influenced by the sequencing of micro and macroeconomics. Because studies have
suggested differences in subject interest is a source of gender differences in persistence,
it would be helpful to document the degree to which persistent differences are consistent
whether first enrolment is introductory micro or macroeconomics.
• How does the documented gender difference in course withdrawal at the intro-
ductory course level impact future course-taking decisions, and is this withdrawal
behaviour also prevalent beyond the introductory course?
Understanding course enrolment decisions after withdrawal from an introductory
course can provide insight into whether performance or other circumstances generated
the withdrawal. To what extent do re-enrolment trends differ by gender? If females re-
enrol to a lesser degree, is this an indication that the class environment (content and
pedagogy) is failing to interest female students? Withdrawal behaviour associated
with other key economics courses, such as intermediate courses, has yet to be studied.
Persistence
As noted above, women are more likely to drop economics after the principles and
intermediate classes, but the few studies that investigate the step-wise progression
from introductory courses to graduating with a major suggest that the gender differen-
tial stabilizes after completion of intermediate courses. Replication studies are needed
to determine whether this trend is consistent across institution types. If the result holds,
then it provides further evidence that a reconsideration of the content and pedagogy of
the introductory course is warranted if the gender gap is to be reduced. Additionally,
little is known about enrolment gaps in courses other than introductory and intermedi-
ate courses.
• Are there gender differences in elective course enrolment? To what extent do
elective courses have differential prerequisites and is this a potential source
for attracting or repelling majors (differentially by gender)?
• To what extent do gender gaps exist for differing types of majors, including BA
versus BS, mathematical economics, quantitative economics, development or
international economics, agricultural economics, etc.?

via free access
As described above, studies have found that calculus requirements have different
impacts on the likelihood of majoring by sex but little is known about other requirements
including econometric requirements, the number and topics of elective courses, the
degree to which required electives have intermediate as a prerequisite, etc. Knowing
more about the impact of differential requirements might provide impetus for offering
a variety of economics majors to help close the gender gap.
Commonly cited reasons

Economists have been documenting, hypothesizing, and analyzing reasons why
women are underrepresented in the field. As we have discussed, much of the evidence
is mixed and in many cases conclusions are drawn from single studies.
Broad disciplinary issues

• Are the issues we see in graduate education causing fewer women to pursue
degrees? Or fewer women to complete the degree?
Most of the work at this point documents the issues that women face, but it does not
estimate a causal link between them. Graduate education is highly theoretical and it
does feel like mental boot camp, but does this differentially drive women away
from the field and profession?
• What is the impact of the implicit bias that female graduate students and faculty
endure? Does implicit bias (e.g., how reference letters are written (Eberhardt,
Facchini and Rueda 2022)) impact how future employers see female job candi-
dates or does it impact the extent to which women want to pursue different
employment pathways?
The major — characteristics, career paths
• What causes women to be uninterested in economics before they even enter college?
Research documents that women arrive at college with less interest in majoring in eco-
nomics but does little to explain why. Knowing why is a necessary precursor to creat-
ing policies to impact interest levels.
• Does math matter for majoring in economics?
One of the difficulties with this question is that the research question can be asked in so
many ways. Since we know that men are still more likely to choose other STEM majors
that require math, it is perhaps not surprising that evidence on the role of math also sug-
gests this gender gap in economics. Research suggests that women have the quantitative
background to be successful as economics majors but they are not choosing economics as
a major.
• Will teaching different content change the composition of our classroom?
Raj Chetty and his colleagues provide a suggestion that it does (Bayer et al. 2020), but that
is a single class taught at one of the most selective institutions the world. As this is a very
common reason given to explain the gender gap, it is crucial to see RCTs at heterogeneous
institutions throughout the curriculum to verify this claim.

via free access
Course-specific outcomes – performance differences

• How important is the relevance, belonging, and growth mindset?
The arguments that underly the importance of these three factors in explaining the gap
are sensible. Yet, all that has yet been done is to document differences across gender.
We do not know if more RBG will attract more women. For example, if grade sensi-
tivity is a primary driver of major choice for female students, a great sense of RBG
might result in female students having a more positive attitude towards economics
but still not choosing it as a major. We need interventions and testing to see how
much these three factors matter.
• Do we need more females in the classroom to attract females?
If the answer is yes, it creates a problem of timing. How do we attract more women to
economics if we need more women in economics? However, the importance of role
models and peers is still unresolved and further research is needed.
• What if the issue is that more male students have a comparative advantage in
quantitative fields, such as economics, because male and female students have
equal math ability but female students have greater verbal/reading ability?
Breda and Napp (2019, p. 15435) find that “female students who are good at math are
much more likely than male students to be even better in reading. As a consequence,
the difference between 15-yr-old students’ math and reading abilities, which is likely
to be determined by earlier socialization processes, can explain up to 80 percent of the
gender gap in intentions to pursue math-studies and careers.” This suggests substan-
tially different policy implications as it implies a need to make economics less quan-
titative not because female students are less able to do the math but because it takes
less advantage of their verbal skills.
• Does how we teach actually matter for persistence of women in the field?
How we teach cannot explain why women express less interest in economics or less
confidence before taking an economics class. Most new technologies for teachers
are sold, in part, on the marketing that they save the instructor’s time, and this suggests
that time constraints matter. Before encouraging the profession to incur the cost to
switch pedagogy, we must document that the change will have the desired impact.
• To what extent do solutions need to be stratified by type of institution?
Dean and Dolan (2001) provide evidence that the location of the economics depart-
ment substantially alters the characteristics of the major. We expect that the students
are different, and it is possible the faculty are different. Thus, the policy recommenda-
tions will also need to differ.
Interventions
Many of the interventions reviewed in this paper have an express intent of increasing
the proportion of females majoring in economics. Some do not analyze the impact on
male students. It is important to note that efforts should not come at the expense of
decreasing the number of male majors. Intervention studies should be carefully con-
structed to “do no harm” by having a larger impact on female than male students,
or be neutral for male students.

via free access
A vast majority of the intervention studies have been conducted for introductory
courses. Replication of these studies for other required courses in the major would
provide greater insight into their impact on student outcomes.
Nudges
• What information do students have about the economics major? What are their
perceptions of it before, during, and after taking a course and how does it differ
by gender?
What is relatively common across nudge studies is a lack of documentation as to what
students actually know about the major, its difficulty, and career opportunities before an
intervention is conducted and whether there are differences by gender. Authors are
assuming what students do and do not know or perceive about the major and base an
intervention on that assumption.
• How do nudges impact actual course taking and majoring decisions of students?
Some studies rely on declared intentions by student to take more classes or to major
as their outcome measure of interest. This is problematic to the extent that intentions
differ from actual behaviour and whether this differs by gender.
New content and courses

• Does altering course content attract students to the major and does this differ by
gender?
While much has been written about the need to change course content to be more rele-
vant to all students, little evidence that this has the intended impact exists.
Pedagogy
• Do specific active learning pedagogies have a differential impact on perfor-
mance, future course taking, and majoring in economics that differs by gender?
Most studies show that active learning pedagogies have differential impact, control-
ling for gender but far fewer estimate the differential impact by gender. Studies
that analyze gender differences still generally fail to identify or test the mechanisms
by which these differences arise, instead simply comparing the active learning inter-
vention with lecturing.
Role models and department-wide interventions

• Do program-wide interventions increase the percentages of women engaged in
economics?
Developing a speaker series or alumni events with special attention to gender balance
in invitees and topics, creating Undergraduate Women in Economics clubs, and hold-
ing undergraduate women in economics conferences are among just a few of the
broader programs that might attract more females to take courses and perhaps major
in economics.

via free access
CONCLUSION
It should be clear from the wealth of research findings presented that many economists
take seriously the question of why women choose to major in economics at such a dis-
proportionally low rate. In fact, this is not a complete review article as there are many
additional research papers we could have included. The importance of this issue is
demonstrated in other places within the profession as well. In the last few years, the
American Economic Association hired an ombudsman to hear complaints from mem-
bers and it created the Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Professional Conduct; the
Outreach to High School and Undergraduate Students in Economics; and the Task
Force on Best Practices for Professional Conduct in Economics. These groups are
working, as are many independent groups within the profession, to increase the diver-
sity of the economics profession.
Unfortunately, what we know is greatly outweighed by what we do not know. What
do we know? Most of what we know is descriptive and can be placed into one of the
following four categories:
1. Women take fewer economics classes and are less likely to major in economics
than are men, given their proportion of the undergraduate population.
2. The fraction of economics bachelor’s degrees awarded to women has been stag-
nant for the past several decades.
3. Academic economics has developed a reputation that the field is not always wel-
coming to women.
4. What we teach and how we teach it has changed very little over this same time
period.
This seems like a short list, and it is, but there are few other conclusions that we can
draw at this point.
Much of the research discussed in this paper attempts to explain the outcomes com-
prising categories (1) and (2) using the state of the profession as described in categories
(3) and (4). But as we have seen, the research to date is inconclusive, lacks generaliz-
ability, or has not been extensively researched. What do we not know but want to
know in a broader sense? A partial list of these things includes:
1. Does who we teach matter? We know very little about the topics of importance
to the current generation of students, and how this might differ by region or
country. If one goal is to make economics more appealing to a more diverse stu-
dent body, then using issues of importance to demonstrate the value added of
economics might have a great impact.
2. Does what we teach matter? Although there is some evidence that female students
are not as interested in the current content of our introductory courses, this does
not mean that female students will be more inclined to take further economics
courses if we change the content. The authors have heard numerous students
say “I really enjoyed the issues we discussed in this class, but economics isn’t
for me.” So students might like classes with different content more, but it does
not mean it will lead to more female economics majors.
3. Does when we teach it matter? There is mixed evidence that teaching economics
at the high-school level impacts the understanding of and attitudes towards econ-
omics differentially by gender. If being exposed to economics in high school has
a differential (negative) impact on women, then understanding what is happen-
ing in those classes is critical to narrowing the gender gap.

via free access
4. Does it matter where we teach it? While results described above suggest there are
some consistent outcomes across institutions (e.g., percentage of women taking
introductory economics), there is much to be learned about the extent to which
where economic education takes place impacts outcomes. With such little known
about economics at the community college level, there is much to be gained
from focusing efforts in this area.
5. Does how we teach matter? The American Economic Association’s EDUCATE
teaching program outlines several active, engaging teaching methods that the facil-
itators of the workshop believe yield better outcomes for women and underrepre-
sented minorities. But as we have seen, the evidence to this point is inconclusive.
The profession’s efforts to be more inclusive is analogous to how the medical profession
had to react during the pandemic. COVID-19 was an immediate problem, and society
could not wait years for studies to emerge on the most effective preventative and treat-
ment measures. The best researchers could do is provide direction based on what they
knew at the time, and then update these prescriptions as new research emerged. Simi-
larly, if not as globally important, the economics profession should not wait years for
more conclusive studies to emerge and then offer suggestions on how to close the gender
gap. Instead, we can make changes based on the current state of the science. For exam-
ple, an updated curriculum and an active learning environment may provide a more
inclusive class experience.
In short, more research is needed, and the research needs to make every effort to over-
come the shortcomings identified earlier. Economists need to continue to innovate and
try new things in the classroom and to motivate a more diverse groups of students to
study economics. When undertaking such an endeavour, greater effort should be
made to recruit colleagues at other institutions to participate in the study. Careful
thought should be given to the research design and the outcomes that are to be measured.
More generally, the profession must decide that this research is important. Conducting
effective research in this domain is no less time consuming or demanding than any other,
but the “rewards” for such research often do not yield the same payoffs. While the AER
Papers & Proceedings publishes some papers in this area, and some general interest jour-
nals publish an occasional article (e.g., Southern Economic Journal), most articles
are published solely in the economic education field journals. The AEA could take
the next step and create an education journal. The American Physical Society publishes
Physical Review Physics Education Research, which recently published the editorial
“Research on Advancing Equity is Critical for Physics.” Similarly, the Association for
Computing Machinery publishes ACM Transactions on Computing Education. If the pro-
fession believes that the answers to the questions regarding the gender gap are important,
those working to provide the answers should not be doing so as a public service.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank an anonymous referee for comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
Ahlstrom, L.J. and Asarta, C.J. (2019), ‘The gender gap in undergraduate economics course per-
sistence and degree selection’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 109,
255–260.

via free access
Allgood, S. (2001), ‘Grade targets and teaching innovations’, Economics of Education Review,
20(5), 485–493.
Allgood, S., Walstad, W.B. and Siegfried, J.J. (2015), ‘Research on teaching economics to
undergraduates’, Journal of Economic Literature, 53(2), 285–325.
Anderson, G., Benjamin, D. and Fuss, M.A. (1994), ‘The determinants of success in university
introductory economics courses’, Journal of Economic Education, 25(2), 99–119.
Asarta, C.J. and Butters, R.B. (2012), ‘The discouraged-business-major hypothesis revisited:
Could economics be the encouraged-business-major?’, Journal of Economic Education,
43(1), 19–32.
Astorne-Figari, C. and Speer, J.D. (2019), ‘Are changes of major major changes? The roles of
grades, gender, and preferences in college major switching’, Economics of Education
Review, 70, 75–93.
Bach, G.L. and Saunders, P. (1965), ‘Economic education: aspirations and achievements’,
American Economic Review, 55, 329–356.
Ballard, C. and Johnson, M. (2005), ‘Gender, expectations, and grades in introductory micro-
economics at a US university’, Feminist Economics, 11(1), 95–122.
Bartlett, R.L. (1995), ‘Attracting “otherwise bright students” to economics 101’, American
Economic Review, 85(2), 362–366.
Bayer, A. and Wilcox, D.W. (2019), ‘The unequal distribution of economic education: a report
on the race, ethnicity, and gender of economics majors at U.S. colleges and universities’,
Journal of Economic Education, 50(3), 299–320.
Bayer, A., Bhanot, S.P. and Lozano, F. (2019), ‘Does simple information provision lead to more
diverse classrooms? Evidence from a field experiment on undergraduate economics’, American
Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 109, 110–114.
Bayer, A., Bhanot, S.P., Bronchetti, E.T. and O’Connell, S.A. (2020), ‘Diagnosing the learning
environment for diverse students in introductory economics: an analysis of relevance,
belonging, and growth mindsets’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings,
110, 294–298.
Bayer, A., Bruich, G., Chetty, R. and Housiaux, A. (2020). ‘Expanding and diversifying the pool
of undergraduates who study economics: insights from a new introductory course at Har-
vard’, Journal of Economic Education, 51(3–4), 364–379.
Bettinger, E.P. and Long, B.T. (2005), ‘Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instruc-
tor gender on female students’, American Economic Review, 95(2), 152–157.
Black, D.A., Sanders, S. and Taylor, L. (2003), ‘The economic reward for studying economics’,
Economic Inquiry, 41(3), 365–377.
Boustan, L. and Langan, A. (2019), ‘Variation in women’s success across PhD programs in
economics’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 23–42.
Breda, T. and Napp, C. (2019), ‘Girls’ comparative advantage in reading can largely explain
the gender gap in math-related fields’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
116(31), 15435–15440.
Canaan, S. and Mouganie, P. (2021), ‘Does advisor gender affect women’s persistence in econ-
omics?’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 111, 112–116.
Carrell, S.E., Page, M.E. and West, J.E. (2010), ‘Sex and science: how professor gender per-
petuates the gender gap’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1101–1144.
Carroll, T., Assane, D. and Busker, J. (2014), ‘Why it pays to major in economics’, Journal of
Economic Education, 45(3), 251–261.
Caviglia-Harris, J. (2016), ‘Flipping the undergraduate economics classroom: using online
videos to enhance teaching and learning’, Southern Economic Journal, 83(1), 321–331.
Chambers, A., Dickert-Conlin, S., Elder, C., Haider, S.J. and Imberman, S. (2021), ‘Info.Econ:
increasing diversity among economics majors’, American Economic Review: Papers and
Proceedings, 111, 133–137.
Chevalier, J. (2021), ‘Report: Committee on the status of women in the economics profession’,
American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 111, 742–763.
Colander, D. and Holmes, J. (2007), ‘Gender and graduate economics education in the US’,
Feminist Economics, 13(2), 93–116.

via free access
College Board (2016), ‘2016 college-bound seniors: Total group profile report’. Available at:
https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/total-group-2016.pdf [Accessed
February 22, 2017].
Craft, E. and Linask, M. (2020), ‘Learning effects of the flipped classroom in a principles of
microeconomics course’, Journal of Economic Education, 51(1), 1–18.
Dean, D.H. and Dolan, R.C. (2001), ‘Liberal arts or business: does the location of the economics
department alter the major?’, Journal of Economic Education, 32(1), 18–35.
Doleac, J. L., Hengel, E. and Pancotti, E. (2021), ‘Diversity in economics seminars: who gives
invited talks?’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 111, 55–59.
Dupas, P., Modestino, A. S., Niederle, M. and Wolfers, J. (2021), ‘Gender and the dynamics of
economics seminars’. Available at: https://doi-org.newman.richmond.edu/http://www.nber.
org/papers/w28494.pdf [Accessed March 30, 2022].
Duval-Hernandez, R. and Villagomez, F.A. (2011), ‘Trends and characteristics of economics
degrees in a developing country: the case of Mexico’, Journal of Economic Education,
42(1), 87–94.
Dweck, C. S. (2006), Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, New York: Random House.
Dynan, K.E. and Rouse, C.E. (1997), ‘The underrepresentation of women in economics: a
study of undergraduate economics students’, Journal of Economic Education, 28(4),
350–368.
Eberhardt, M., Facchini, G. and Rueda, V. (2022), ‘Gender differences in reference letters: evi-
dence from the economics job market’, IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper
Series No. 15055. Available at: https://docs.iza.org/dp15055.pdf [Accessed May 1, 2022].
Elzinga, K.G. and Melaugh, D.O. (2009). ‘35,000 principles of economics students: some les-
sons learned’, Southern Economic Journal, 76(1), 32–46.
Emerson, T.L.N. and English, L. (2016), ‘Classroom experiments: is more more?’, American
Economic Review, 106(5), 363–367.
Emerson, T.L.N. and McGoldrick, K. (2019), ‘Switching majors-into and out of economics’,
Emerson, T.L.N. and Taylor, B.A. (2004), ‘Comparing student achievement across experimental
and lecture-oriented sections of a principles of microeconomics course’, Southern Economic
Journal, 70(3), 672–693.
Emerson, T.L.N., English, L.K. and McGoldrick, K. (2015), ‘Evaluating the cooperative com-
ponent in cooperative learning: a quasi-experimental study’, Journal of Economic Education,
46(1), 1–13.
Emerson, T.L.N., English, L.K. and McGoldrick, K. (2016), ‘Cooperative learning and person-
ality types’, International Review of Economic Education, 21, 21–29.
Emerson, T.L.N., English, L.K. and McGoldrick, K. (2018), ‘The high costs of large enrollment
classes: can cooperative learning help?’, Eastern Economic Journal, 44(3), 455–474.
Emerson, T.L.N., McGoldrick, K.M. and Mumford, K.J. (2012), ‘Women and the choice to
study economics’, Journal of Economic Education, 43(4), 349–362.
Emerson, T.L.N., McGoldrick, K. and Siegfried, J.J. (2018), ‘The gender gap in economics
degrees: an investigation of the role model and quantitative requirements hypotheses’, South-
ern Economic Journal, 84(3), 898–911.
Espey, M. (2018), ‘Diversity, effort, and cooperation in team-based learning’, Journal of Econ-
omic Education, 49(1), 8–21.
Fournier, G.M. and Sass, T.R. (2000), ‘Take my course, please: the effects of the principles
experience on student curriculum choice’, Journal of Economic Education, 31(4), 323–339.
Goldin, C. (2015), ‘Gender and the undergraduate economics major: notes on the undergraduate
economics major at a highly selective liberal arts college’, Department of Economics, Har-
vard University Working Paper. Available at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/
claudia_gender_paper.pdf [Accessed May 2, 2022].
Griffith, A.L. (2014), ‘Faculty gender in the college classroom: does it matter for achievement
and major choice?’, Southern Economic Journal, 81(1), 211–231.
Hadsell, L. (2020), ‘Not for want of trying: effort and success of women in principles of micro-
economics’, International Review of Economics Education, 35(November), 100189.

via free access
Halim, D., Powers, E.T. and Thornton, R. (2022), ‘Gender differences in economics course-taking
and majoring: findings from an RCT’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings,
112(May), 597–602.
Hettler, P.L. (2015), ‘Student demographics and the impact of team-based learning’, Inter-
national Advances in Economic Research, 21(4), 413–422.
Hoffmann, F. and Oreopoulos, P. (2009), ‘A professor like me: the influence of instructor gender
on college achievement’, Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), 479–494.
Jensen, E.J. and Owen, A.L. (2001), ‘Pedagogy, gender, and interest in economics’, Journal of
Lage, M.J. and Treglia, M. (1996), ‘The impact of integrating scholarship on women into intro-
ductory economics: evidence from one institution’, Journal of Economic Education, 27(1),
26–36.
Li, H.H. (2018), ‘Do mentoring, information, and nudge reduce the gender gap in economics
majors?’, Economics of Education Review, 64, 165–183.
Maier, M.H. and Keenan, D. (1994), ‘Teaching tools: cooperative learning in economics’, Econ-
omic Inquiry, 32(2), 358–361.
Maier, M., McGoldrick, K. and Simkins, S. (2011), ‘Cooperative learning and discipline-based
pedagogical innovations: taking advantage of complementarities’, in J. Cooper and P. Robin-
son (eds.), Small Group Learning in Higher Education: Research and Practice, Stillwater,
OK: New Forums Press, pp. 139–149.
Main, J. B. and Ost, B. (2014), ‘The impact of letter grades on student effort, course selection,
and major choice: a regression-discontinuity analysis’, Journal of Economic Education,
45(1), 1–10.
Marburger, D. R. (2005), ‘Comparing student performance using cooperative learning’, Inter-
national Review of Economics Education, 4(1), 46–57.
McEwan, P. J., Rogers, S. and Weerapana, A. (2021), ‘Grade sensitivity and the economics
major at a women’s college’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 111,
102–106.
McGoldrick, K., Rebelein, R., Rhoads, J. and Stockly, S. (2010), ‘Making cooperative learning
effective for economics’, in M.K Salemi and W.B. Walstad (eds.), Teaching Innovations in
Economics: Strategies and Applications for Interactive Instruction, Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 46–64.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2017), Supporting Students’ Col-
lege Success: The Role of Assessment of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Competencies,
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
O’Connor, S. (2022), ‘Claudia Goldin: greedy work has been made less greedy’, Financial
Times, March 2. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/92be2a2d-aee3-48c5-922b-
84eea37072f8.
Owen, A.L. (2010), ‘Grades, gender, and encouragement: a regression discontinuity analysis’,
Owen, A.L. and Hagstrom, P. (2021), ‘Broadening perceptions of economics in a new introduc-
tory economics sequence’, Journal of Economic Education, 52(3), 175–191.
Porter, C. and Serra, D. (2020), ‘Gender differences in the choice of major: the importance of
female role models’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(3), 226–254.
Pugatch, T. and Schroeder, E. (2021), ‘Promoting female interest in economics: limits to
nudges’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 111, 123–127.
Rask, K.N. and Bailey, E.M. (2002), ‘Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in
an undergraduate institution’, Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), 99–124.
Rask, K. and Tiefenthaler, J. (2008), ‘The role of grade sensitivity in explaining the gender
imbalance in undergraduate economics’, Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 676–687.
Round, D.K. and Shanahan, M.P. (2010), ‘The economics degree in Australia: down but not
out?’, Journal of Economic Education, 41(4), 425–435.
Ruder, P., Maier, M.H. and Simkins, S.P. (2021), ‘Getting started with team-based learning
(TBL): an introduction’, Journal of Economic Education, 52(3), 220–230.

via free access
Siegfried, J.J. (1979), ‘Male-female differences in economic education: a survey’, Journal of

Siegfried, J.J. (2021), ‘Trends in undergraduate economics degrees, 2001–2020’, Journal of
Siegfried, J.J. and Round, D.K. (2001), ‘International trends in economics degrees during the
1990s’, Journal of Economic Education, 32(3), 203–218.
Stevenson, B. and Zlotnik, H. (2018), ‘Representations of men and women in introductory econ-
omics textbooks’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 108, 180–185.
Stock, W.A., K. Ward, J. Folsom, T. Borrenpohl, S. Mumford, Z. Pershin, D. Carriere and
H. Smart (2013), ‘Cheap and effective: the impact of student-led recitation classes on learn-
ing outcomes in introductory economics’, Journal of Economic Education, 44(1), 1–16.
Tonin, M. and Wahba, J. (2015), ‘The sources of the gender gap in economics enrollment’,
CESifo Economic Studies, 61(1), 72–94.
Walstad, W. and Bosshardt, W. (2019), ‘Grades in economics and other undergraduate courses’,
American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 109, 266–270.
Yamarik, S. (2007), ‘Does cooperative learning improve student learning outcomes?’, Journal of

via free access

Aee Article p4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aee Article p4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Economics Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, Spring 2023, pp.

Understanding sex differences when

Keywords: gender, economics education, economics major

JEL codes: A22, J16

* Corresponding author: email: sallgood1@unl.edu.

DOCUMENTING GENDER DIFFERENCES

We document enrolment patterns at the introductory course level, and differences in

Introductory economics enrolment

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Common reasons for the gender gap

Issues within the profession

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

A broad view: the major

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

A narrow view: the economics classroom

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Interventions/courses/pedagogy/programs to increase gender diversity

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

treated (encouragement if above median grade) females majoring in economics if they

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

problem-solving nature of the exercises is more important than the mechanism by

Role models and department-wide interventions

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING STUDIES

Administrative retrospective data

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

10. Allgood (2001) shows a similar result graphically.

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

ROADMAP FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Documenting gender differences

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Commonly cited reasons

Broad disciplinary issues

The major — characteristics, career paths

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Course-specific outcomes – performance differences

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

New content and courses

Role models and department-wide interventions

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

Siegfried, J.J. (1979), ‘Male-female differences in economic education: a survey’, Journal of

Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/11/2023 09:01:21AM

You might also like