The STEM fields, otherwise known as the Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics areas, have become the focus of multiple studies and funding initiatives in recent years. Despite these efforts, lingering concerns exist about who enters, who is retained, and who completes the doctorate in STEM fields. This study utilizes discrete-time event history analysis to model doctoral attrition for 10,088 individuals, in 56 STEM departments, at one research-extensive institution, located in the South, over a 20-year period. Results show that the odds of attrition are the greatest in the first year. Additionally, the odds of attrition are greater for females, Asians, and for those who belong to a hard-applied science major (versus a hard-pure major). The odds of attrition are lower for married students and for those who have higher relative GRE scores than their peers in the same program. The findings of this study provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between particular characteristics of doctoral students and programs on attrition rates over time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllisonP. D. (1982). Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. In LeinhardtS. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 61–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AllisonP. D. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal data (Sage University Papers: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–046). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
3.
AslanbeiguiN. & MontecinosV. (1998). Foreign students in U.S. doctoral programs. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 171–182.
4.
AttiyehG. (1999). Determinants of persistence of graduate students in Ph.D. programs. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5.
BairC. R. & HaworthJ. G. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX.
6.
BakerJ. G. (1998). Gender, race, and Ph.D. completion in natural sciences and engineering. Economics of Education Review, 17(2), 179–188.
7.
BerelsonB. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
BergH. M. & FerberM. A. (1983). Men and women graduate students: Who succeeds and why?The Journal of Higher Education, 54(6), 629–648.
9.
BiglanA. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.
10.
BiglanA. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.
11.
BowenW. G. & RudenstineN. L. (1992). In pursuit of the Ph.D.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
ChubinD. E.MayG. S. & BabcoE. L. (2005). Diversifying the engineering workforce. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 73–86.
13.
ClarkS. M. & CorcoranM. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socialization of women faculty: A case of accumulative disadvantage?The Journal of Higher Education, 57, 20–43.
14.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2004). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Policy, numbers, leadership, and next steps. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Document Number).
15.
Council on Postsecondary Education. (2007). Kentucky's STEM imperative: Competing in the global economy. Louisville, KY: University of Kentucky. Document Number).
16.
DesJardinsS. L.McCallB. P.AhlburgD. A. & MoyeM. J. (2002). Adding a timing light to the “tool box.”Research in Higher Education, 43(1), 83–114.
EpenshadeT. J. & RodriguezG. (1997). Completing the Ph.D.: Comparative performances of U.S. and foreign students. Social Science Quarterly, 78(2), 593–605.
19.
EthingtonC. A. & PisaniA. (1993). The RA and TA experience: Impediments and benefits to graduate study. Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 343–354.
20.
EtzkowitzH.KemelgorC. & UzziB. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GoldeC. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. In AndersonM. S. (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: An exploration (pp. 55–64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
GoldeC. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669–700.
23.
GrantL.KennellyI. & WardK. B. (2000). Revisiting the gender, marriage, and parenthood puzzle in scientific careers. Women's Studies Quarterly, 1–2, 62–85.
24.
HerzigA. H. (2004). Becoming mathematicians: Women and students of color choosing and leaving doctoral mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 74(2), 171–214.
25.
HofferT. B. V.WelchJ.WebberK.WilliamsK.LisekB.HessM. (2006). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2005. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Document Number).
26.
HouseJ. D. (1997). Predictive validity of Graduate Record Examination scores for outcomes of American Indian/Alaska Native students. Psychological Reports, 81, 337–338.
27.
IshitaniT. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861–885.
28.
KnowlesM. F. & HarlestonB. W. (1997). Achieving diversity in the professoriate: Challenges and opportunities. New York: American Council on Education. Document Number).
29.
KossekE. E.MarkelK. S. & McHughP. P. (2003). Increasing diversity as an HRM change strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(3), 328–352.
30.
KuncelN. R.HezlettS. A. & OnesD. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162–181.
31.
LovittsB. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
32.
MargolisE. & RomeroM. (1998). “The department is very male, very white, very old, and very conservative”: The functioning of the hidden curriculum in graduate sociology departments. Harvard Educational Review, 68(1), 1–32.
33.
MatonK. I.HrabowskiF. A.III (2004). Increasing the number of African American PhDs in the sciences and engineering: A strengths-based approach. American Psychologist, 59(6), 547–556.
34.
McCormickA. C. (2001). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Document Number).
35.
MendozaP. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.
36.
MurtaughP. A.BurnsL. D. & SchusterJ. (1999). Predicting the retention of university students. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 355–371.
37.
NamboodiriK. & SuchindranC. M. (1987). Life table techniques and their applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. National Research Council. (1996). Path to the Ph.D. Measuring graduate attrition in the sciences and the humanities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Document Number).
38.
National Research Council. (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
NeradM. & CernyJ. (1991). From facts to action: Expanding the educational role of the graduate division. CGS Communicator, 1–12.
40.
NeradM. & MillerD. S. (1996). Increasing student retention in graduate and professional programs. In HaworthJ. G. (Ed.), Assessing graduate and professional education: Current realities, future prospects (pp. 61–76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41.
NettlesM. T. & MillettC. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D.Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
PowersD. A. & XieY. (2000). Statistical methods for categorical data analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43.
PriceJ. (2006). Does a spouse slow you down?: Marriage and graduate student outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.
44.
RhoadsR. A.SaenzV. & CarducciR. (2005). Higher education reform as a social movement: The case of affirmative action. The Review of Higher Education, 28(2), 191–220.
45.
TintoV. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
46.
TrowerC. A. & ChaitR. P. (2002). Faculty diversity: Too little for too long. Harvard Magazine (March-April), 33–37, 98.
47.
TurnerC. S. V. (2002). Diversifying the faculty: A guidebook for search committees. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
48.
U.S. News and World Report. (2007). America's Best Graduate Schools.
49.
WardK. A. & Wolf-WendelL. (2004). Academic motherhood: Managing complex roles in research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 233–257.
50.
ZwickR. (1991). Differences in graduate school attainment patterns across academic programs and demographic groups. Princeton, NJ: Minority Graduate Education Project, Educational Testing Service and Graduate Record Examinations. Document Number).
