Cited by 428Higher Education Research StudiesCareer Development and DiversityCritical Race Theory in Education

Does STEM Stand Out? Examining Racial/Ethnic Gaps in Persistence Across Postsecondary Fields

Open access
Riegle-Crumb, Catherine, King, Barbara, Irizarry, Yasmiyn·2019·Educational Researcher

Abstract

Informed by the theoretical lens of opportunity hoarding, this study considers whether STEM postsecondary fields stand apart via the disproportionate exclusion of Black and Latina/o youth. Utilizing national data from the Beginning Postsecondary Study (BPS), the authors investigate whether Black and Latina/o youth who begin college as STEM majors are more likely to depart than their White peers, either by switching fields or by leaving college without a degree, and whether patterns of departure in STEM fields differ from those in non-STEM fields. Results reveal evidence of persistent racial/ethnic inequality in STEM degree attainment not found in other fields.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/0013189x19831006

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Anderson E (2010). The importance of integration Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  2. National Academy of Science. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5 Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 25506949
  3. Tilly C (1997). Durable inequality Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., & Irizarry, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
  • Florida International University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
Educational Researcher
Published
2019-02-21
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
133-144
ISSN
  • 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-102X
OpenAlex
W2915479751
Cited by
411
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 3
FWCI
99.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Researcher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (5 R24 HD042849)
  • National Science Foundation (HRD-1348819)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
Keywords
STEM degree attainment, racial and ethnic disparities, Black students, Latina/o students, student persistence, opportunity hoarding, university dropout, postsecondary education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review