You are here:

First impressions in the classroom: How do class characteristics affect student grades and majors?
ARTICLE

, Wake Forest University, United States ; , Purdue University, United States

Economics of Education Review Volume 69, Number 1, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Understanding how peers and instructors can impact students’ outcomes and choice of major after taking the first class in the field is important for promoting persistence in STEM fields. This paper uses data on first-year engineering students at a large, selective engineering school to investigate how peer gender, race, and ability, as well as instructor gender, can impact grades and persistence in engineering. Our findings indicate that gender diversity in the classroom improves all students’ propensity to continue in engineering, and an increase in underrepresented minorities improves grades for minority students. Peer ability also has a strong impact, with an increase in lower-ability students pulling down achievement and persistence in engineering of the bottom of the ability distribution, and an increase in high-ability students improving achievement for all. Finally, our results suggest students benefit from a more diverse ability grouping of their peers in the classroom. We find some evidence that male students are more sensitive to peer ability than are female students.

Citation

Griffith, A.L. & Main, J.B. (2019). First impressions in the classroom: How do class characteristics affect student grades and majors?. Economics of Education Review, 69(1), 125-137. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved September 22, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 15, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.02.001

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Angrist, J. (2014). The perils of peer effects. Labour Economics, 30(C), pp. 98-108.
  2. Arcidiacono, P., Aucejo, E.M., & Hotz, V.J. (2016). University differences in the graduation of minorities in STEM fields: Evidence from California. American Economic Review, 106(3), pp. 525-562.
  3. Ashworth, J., & Evans, J.L. (2001). Modeling student subject choice at secondary and tertiary level. A cross-section study. Journal of Economic Education, 32(4), pp. 311-320.
  4. Bettinger, E.P., & Long, B.T. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 95(2), pp. 152-157.
  5. Booij, A.S., Leuven, E., & Oosterbeck, H. (2017). Ability peer effects in university: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Review of Economic Studies, 84(2), pp. 547-578.
  6. Brady, R.R., Insler, M.A., & Rahman, A.S. (2017). Bad company: Understanding negative peer effects in college achievement. European Economic Review, 98(C), pp. 144-168.
  7. Brenoe, A.A., & Zolitz, U. (2018). Exposure to more female peers widens the gender gap in STEM participation. Zurich: University of Zurich Department of Economics.
  8. Canes, B.J., & Rosen, H.S. (1995). Following in her footsteps? Faculty gender composition and women's choice of college majors. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), pp. 486-504.
  9. Carrell, S.E., Fullerton, R.L., & West, J.E. (2009). Does your cohort matter? Measuring peer effects in college achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(3), pp. 439-464.
  10. Carrell, S.E., Page, M.E., & West, J.E. (2010). Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), pp. 1101-1144.
  11. Carrell, S.E., Sacerdote, B., & West, J.E. (2013). From natural variation to optimal policy? The importance of endogenous peer group formation. Econometrica, 81(3), pp. 855-882.
  12. Cooley Fruehwirth, J. (2013). Identifying peer achievement spillovers: Implications for desegregation and the achievement gap. Quantitative Economics, 4(1), pp. 85-124.
  13. Dee, T. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter?. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 95(2), pp. 158-165.
  14. Dee, T. (2007). Teacher and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), pp. 528-554.
  15. Del Rossi, A.F., & Hersch, J. (2008). Double your major, double your return?. Economics of Education Review, 27, pp. 375-386.
  16. Ehrenberg, R.G., Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (1995). Do teachers’ race, gender, and ethnicity matter? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), pp. 547-561.
  17. Fairlie, R.W., Hoffmann, F., & Oreopoulos, P. (2014). A community college instructor like me: Race and ethnicity interactions in the classroom. American Economic Review, 104(8), pp. 2567-2591.
  18. Feld, J., & Zolitz, U. (2017). Understanding peer effects: On the nature, estimation, and channels of peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics, 35(2), pp. 387-428.
  19. Feld, J., & Zolitz, U. (2018). “Peers from Venus and Mars: Higher-achieving men foster gender gaps in major choice and labor market outcomes.” Working Paper.
  20. Ficano, C.C. (2014). Peer effects in college academic outcomes – Gender matters!. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), pp. 1102-1115.
  21. Fischer, S. (2017). The downside of good peers: How classroom composition differentially affects men's and women's STEM persistence. Labour Economics, 46(1), pp. 211-226.
  22. Griffith, A.L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?. Economics of Education Review, 29, pp. 911-922.
  23. Griffith, A.L. (2014). Faculty gender in the college classroom: Does it matter for achievement and major choice?. Southern Economic Journal, 81(1), pp. 211-231.
  24. Griffith, A.L., & Rask, K.N. (2014). Peer effects in higher education: A look at heterogeneous impacts. Economics of Education Review, 39(1), pp. 65-77.
  25. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2009). New evidence abour Brown v. Board of Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(3), pp. 349-383.
  26. Hill, A. (2017). The positive influence of female college students on their male peers. Labour Economics, 44(1), pp. 151-160.
  27. Hoffman, F., & Oreopoulos, P. (2009). A professor like me: The influence of instructor gender on college achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), pp. 479-494.
  28. Hoxby, C. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation.” NBER Working Paper #7867.
  29. Hoxby, C., & Weingarth, G. (2006). “Taking race out of the equation: School reassignment and the structure of peer effects.” Unpublished Manuscript.
  30. Huntington-Klein, N., & Rose, E. (2018). Gender peer effects in a predominantly male environment: Evidence from West point. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108, pp. 392-395.
  31. Lavy, V.M., Paserman, D., & Schlosser, A. (2012). Inside the black box of ability peer effects: Evidence from variation in high and low achievers in the classroom. The Economic Journal, 122(559), pp. 208-237.
  32. Lavy, V., Silva, O., & Weinhardt, F. (2012). The good, the bad, and the average: Evidence on the scale and nature of ability peer effects in schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 30(2), pp. 367-414.
  33. Luppino, M., & Sander, R. (2015). College major peer effects and attrition from the sciences. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 4(4).
  34. Lusher, L., Campbell., D., & Carrell, S. (2018). TAs like me: Racial interactions between graduate teaching assistants and undergraduates. Journal of Public Economics, 159, pp. 203-224.
  35. Main, J.B. (2014). Gender homophily, Ph.D. Completion, and time to degree in the humanities and humanistic social sciences. The Review of Higher Education, 37(3), pp. 349-375.
  36. Main, J.B. (2018). Kanter's theory of proportions: Organizational demography and PhD completion in science and engineering departments. Research in Higher Education, 59(8), pp. 1059-1073.
  37. Main, J.B., & Ost, B. (2014). The impact of grades on student effort, course selection, and major choice: A regression-discontinuity analysis. Journal of Economic Education, 45(1), pp. 25-35.
  38. Manski, C.F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), pp. 531-542.
  39. National Science Board, Science (2012). and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
  40. Oosterbeek, H., & van Ewijk, R. (2014). Gender peer effects in university: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Economics of Education Review, 38(1), pp. 51-63.
  41. Ost, B. (2010). The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), pp. 923-934.
  42. Owen, A. (2010). Grades, gender, and encouragement: A regression discontinuity analysis. Journal of Economic Education, 41(3), pp. 217-234.
  43. Price, J. (2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), pp. 901-910.
  44. Rask, K.N., & Bailey, E.M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), pp. 99-124.
  45. Rask, K.N., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2008). The role of grade sensitivity in explaining the gender imbalance in undergraduate economics. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), pp. 676-687.
  46. Rask, K.N. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), pp. 892-900.
  47. Rothstein, D.S. (1995). Do female faculty influence female students’ educational and labor market attainments?. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), pp. 515-529.
  48. Sacerdote, B.L. (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), pp. 681-704.
  49. Sacerdote, B.L. (2011). Peer effects in education: How might they work, how big are they and how much do we know thus far?. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 3, pp. 249-276.
  50. Webber, D. (2016). Are college costs worth it? How individual ability, major choice, and debt affect the results to schooling. Economics of Education Review, 53(2), pp. 296-310.
  51. Yoder, B.L. (2017). Engineering by the numbers.
  52. Zimmerman, D.J. (2003). Peer effects in academic outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(1), pp. 9-23.
  53. Zolitz, U., & Feld, J. (2018). The effect of peer gender on major choice.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References