Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

Item

Title

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

Author

Hendley, Alexandra

Charles, Maria

Research Area

Class, Status and Power

Topic

Gender and Gender Inequality

Abstract

During the second half of the twentieth century, systems of higher education expanded and democratized around the world. Women's participation increased so dramatically that their numbers now surpass men's in many industrialized countries. But gender equalization has not occurred uniformly. Sex segregation of majors and degree programs is a striking feature of modern educational systems and a key reason for the ongoing social and economic inequality of women and men. While significant gender inequality is found within educational systems worldwide, recent evidence shows marked differences among countries and country groups in their degree and pattern of sex segregation. This essay reviews foundational research in this field, identifies emergent trends and cutting‐edge lines of inquiry, and poses questions for future research on men's and women's distribution across educational institutions and fields of study. Much research on sex segregation in higher education has focused on cross‐national differences and historical trends. A major question concerns the persistence of extreme gender differentiation even in the most economically and socially modern contexts. Research findings to date reveal a complex interplay between cultural beliefs, structural forms, and individual cognition in generating and maintaining sex segregation in the modern world. In order to advance research in this field, we suggest that future studies focus on: (i) how patterns of sex segregation differ by race, ethnicity, class, and national origin; (ii) how curricular preferences are formed; (iii) how characteristics of educational systems influence patterns of sex segregation; and (iv) how fields of study (and occupations) become defined as either masculine or feminine.

Related Essays

The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science), Sarah F. Anzia

The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian F. Codding

Stereotype Content (Sociology), Beatrice H. Capestany and Lasana T. Harris

Why So Few Women in Mathematically Intensive Fields? (Psychology), Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams

Gender, Religion, and State in the Middle East (Sociology), Mounira M. Charrad and Amina Zarrugh

Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske and Cydney H. Dupree

Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One's Thoughts (Psychology), Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine

Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres

Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen

Exploring Opportunities in Cultural Diversity (Political Science), David D. Laitin and Sangick Jeon

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless

Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel and Claudia Buchmann

Gender and Women's Influence in Public Settings (Political Science), Tali Mendelberg et al.

Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E. Tetlock

Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff

Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.

Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology), Kristen Schilt

Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall

Gender and the Transition to Adulthood: A Diverse Pathways View (Sociology), Ingrid Schoon

Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith

Gender and Work (Sociology), Christine L. Williams and Megan Tobias Neely

Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo

Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel and Claudia Buchmann

Identifier

etrds0143

extracted text

Gender Segregation
in Higher Education
ALEXANDRA HENDLEY and MARIA CHARLES

Abstract
During the second half of the twentieth century, systems of higher education
expanded and democratized around the world. Women’s participation increased
so dramatically that their numbers now surpass men’s in many industrialized
countries. But gender equalization has not occurred uniformly. Sex segregation of
majors and degree programs is a striking feature of modern educational systems
and a key reason for the ongoing social and economic inequality of women and men.
While significant gender inequality is found within educational systems worldwide,
recent evidence shows marked differences among countries and country groups
in their degree and pattern of sex segregation. This essay reviews foundational
research in this field, identifies emergent trends and cutting-edge lines of inquiry,
and poses questions for future research on men’s and women’s distribution across
educational institutions and fields of study. Much research on sex segregation in
higher education has focused on cross-national differences and historical trends.
A major question concerns the persistence of extreme gender differentiation even
in the most economically and socially modern contexts. Research findings to date
reveal a complex interplay between cultural beliefs, structural forms, and individual
cognition in generating and maintaining sex segregation in the modern world. In
order to advance research in this field, we suggest that future studies focus on: (i)
how patterns of sex segregation differ by race, ethnicity, class, and national origin;
(ii) how curricular preferences are formed; (iii) how characteristics of educational
systems influence patterns of sex segregation; and (iv) how fields of study (and
occupations) become defined as either masculine or feminine.

INTRODUCTION
During the second half of the twentieth century, systems of higher education expanded and democratized around the world. Women’s participation
increased so dramatically that their numbers now surpass men’s in many
industrialized countries. In fact, the majority of the world’s higher education
degree recipients are now women.

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

But gender equalization has not occurred uniformly. Sex segregation of
majors and degree programs is a striking feature of modern educational
systems and a key reason for the ongoing social and economic inequality
between women and men. While significant gender inequality is found
within educational systems worldwide, recent evidence shows marked
differences among countries and country groups in their degree and pattern
of sex segregation. These differences are often counterintuitive in that they
do not correspond to what one would expect given other commonly cited
indicators of women’s status in countries around the world.
Much research on sex segregation in higher education has focused on
cross-national differences and historical trends. A major question concerns
the persistence of extreme gender differentiation even in the most economically and socially modern contexts. Research findings to date reveal a
complex interplay between cultural beliefs, structural forms, and individual
cognition in generating and maintaining sex segregation in the modern
world. The present essay reviews foundational research in this field, identifies emergent trends and cutting-edge lines of inquiry, and poses questions
for future research on men’s and women’s distribution across educational
institution types and fields of study.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
EXPANSION AND FEMINIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Around the middle of the twentieth century, national policies started to
emerge in Western industrial democracies that gradually redefined the
role of higher education. The primary purpose of universities and colleges
shifted from the training and socialization of (male) elites to the broad-scale
production of human capital. Participation began to expand and diversify
accordingly. In the United States, women’s enrollment rates have been
increasing since the 1960s, surpassing male rates by the early 1980s. As of
2010, women received 57% of all bachelor’s degrees conferred in the United
States. The female enrollment advantage holds for all large racial and ethnic
groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and Whites.
The changes in higher education that first occurred in the United States
and the affluent West are now evident worldwide. The number of tertiary (higher education) students reached 100 million by the turn of the
twenty-first century, with women’s global enrollment reaching parity with
men’s around 1990. As of 2007, the world female-to-male enrollment ratio
was 1.08. However, countries and country groups continue to differ substantially in female representation. Men still comprise the majority of higher
education students in less economically developed societies, and especially

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

3

large enrollment gaps persist where laws and cultural norms restrict female
participation in the public sphere—in some Arab countries, for example.
Many scholars have interpreted steady increases in female enrollment as
part of a secular or “evolutionary” trend toward gender equality and meritocratic value systems. From a functionalist or modernization perspective,
the so-called degendering of public-sphere institutions is attributable to
increased pressures for economic efficiency and the higher economic cost of
discrimination in competitive market economies. For other scholars, cultural
values are the driving force: according to sociologists John Meyer, Francisco
Ramirez, and others, powerful egalitarian ideals have diffused worldwide
through social movements, professional associations, and international
organizations. Education is now seen as a fundamental human right and
essential to national economic development and prosperity.
PERSISTENCE OF SEX SEGREGATION WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION
Optimistic accounts of degendering are belied, however, by the persistence
of strong segregation within educational institutions. While women’s access
to higher education has grown dramatically over the past five decades, the
distribution of men and women across specific fields of study has seen far
less change—and the change that has occurred is not always in an integrative
direction. Gender segregation across fields of study declined rapidly during
the 1970s in the United States, but this trend flattened out by about 1985.
Among 2010 degree recipients, the National Center for Education Statistics
reports that women earned 80% of education degrees and 77% of psychology
degrees, but only 18% of computer science and 17% of engineering degrees.
The figure for computer science actually represents a decline since 2000,
when 28% of degrees conferred in this field went to women.
We see similar patterns at the global level. From 1965 to 1990, sex segregation by field of study declined, but only slightly. UNESCO estimates that 70%
of the world’s education degrees and 56% of the world’s humanities degrees
went to women in 2008. In the same year, women received only 29% of science
degrees and 16% of engineering degrees worldwide. But differences among
countries are large. Contrary to what might be expected from modernization
accounts of women’s changing status, recent studies have revealed that sex
segregation across fields of study is not stronger (and is sometimes weaker)
in less economically and culturally modern societies. Malaysia, for instance,
boasts among the world’s most gender-integrated science programs, with
women making up 57% of the country’s degree recipients. Women make up
nearly half of engineering graduates in Indonesia, while some of the most
male-dominated engineering programs are found in a very affluent collection

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

of countries that includes the United States, Japan, Switzerland, and Saudi
Arabia.
The persistence of sex segregation by field of study should be cause for concern. Not only do degrees in female-dominated fields lead to lower paying
jobs, but persistent sex segregation reinforces gender stereotypes and limits
the range of perceived career options for younger generations. Moreover, the
underutilization of female talent may be a threat to prosperity and economic
development in some contexts, especially given severe global shortages of
workers in scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
National trends and cross-national patterns of sex segregation in higher
education are difficult to reconcile with evolutionary accounts suggesting a
declining significance of gender. Two lines of scholarship provide promising
new analytical tools for understanding the persistence of sex segregation:
one on the interplay between cultural gender beliefs and individual cognition, and one on the role of context, specifically organizational arrangements
and cultural belief systems, in shaping patterns of sex segregation.
THE INTERPLAY OF CULTURE AND COGNITION
An important new stream of research on gender inequality considers how
taken-for-granted cultural stereotypes influence individual cognition and
behaviors. These analyses demonstrate that widely held beliefs about gender influence others’ evaluations of our task performance in stereotypical
directions. Biased assessments in turn lead us to judge our own competencies more favorably on gender-conforming activities than on gender
nonconforming ones.
Shelley Correll’s (2004) experimental research documents the powerful
self-fulfilling effects of cultural gender beliefs. Correll purported to administer a test of “contrast sensitivity” to undergraduate students. Before the
test, subjects were told either that men generally perform better or that men
and women do equally well on the test (which, in fact, had no objectively
right or wrong answers). In the first group, men evaluated themselves
more highly than did women, and they were also more likely to declare
aspirations to work in a job requiring “contrast sensitivity.” These and
other findings suggest that beliefs about gender difference—even if they
are wrong—can produce gender differences in self-confidence and push
us toward gender-conforming educational and occupational paths. These
outcomes in turn reinforce stereotypes about men’s and women’s innately
different affinities.

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

5

Cognitive biases about gender difference still affect those who choose nontraditional paths. Recent survey research on college students by Erin Cech
and colleagues (Cech, Rubineau, Silbey, & Seron, 2011) found that female
engineering majors regarded themselves as less professionally competent
and less well suited to the professional culture of engineering than did their
male counterparts. Lower professional role confidence contributed to attrition from the field.
Even those who do not believe in gender stereotypes know that many
others do. People therefore expect to be held accountable to norms of
gender-appropriate behavior. The behavioral manifestations of this cultural
knowledge, sometimes termed doing gender, may include the choice of a
gender-conforming major. For example, male students may wish to affirm
their masculinity by choosing a technical field. Moreover, men and women
may gradually internalize gender-conforming beliefs to which they are
continually held accountable.
CONTEXT MATTERS
A second new stream of research explores how macrocontextual factors,
such as organizational forms and cultural value systems, influence variability in sex segregation. Maria Charles and Karen Bradley (2009) have argued
that some of the very same organizational forms and policy initiatives that
encouraged increased female enrollment in higher education during the
mid-twentieth century also exacerbated sex segregation within them. In
1953, for example, UNESCO issued a formal resolution that aimed to boost
female representation in higher education by offering women more opportunities to specialize in fields well suited to “feminine aptitudes” and female
careers paths. “Feminine aptitudes” were accommodated through establishment of 2-year institutions and expansion of programs in female-labeled
fields such as home economics, health care, office administration, and
hospitality.
Related research has explored the effects of so-called postmaterialist
value systems on gender inequality. Comparative attitudinal research by
Ronald Inglehart (1997) and his colleagues has shown a connection between
national prosperity and the prioritization of self-expressive—as opposed to
material—goals. Charles and Bradley (2009) have fused Inglehart’s cultural
arguments with research on cognitive gender biases to build a framework
for understanding the higher levels of sex segregation in affluent “postmaterialist” societies. In contexts where students are encouraged to “follow their
passions” and to choose fields that they love, educational and occupational
choices come to represent much more than practical economic investments;
they are also acts of self-realization and individual affirmation.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Diverse cognitive biases may make young people expect to love doing things
that they think others in their gender category love (and that they think they
will be good at). As a result, individuals’ efforts to self-realize very often align
with prevailing gender conventions. Gender-typical choices in turn reinforce
cultural beliefs about gender differences and may also bias expectations of
the next generation. Consistent with the argument linking postmaterialist
values with sex segregation, Charles, Harr, Cech, and Hendley (2014) found
a larger gap between boys and girls in “liking math” and aspiring to a mathematically related job in affluent societies than in economically less developed
societies.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We see several ways of advancing the study of gender segregation in higher
education. In particular, we suggest more research on (i) how patterns of sex
segregation differ by race, ethnicity, class, and national origin; (ii) how curricular preferences are formed; (iii) how characteristics of educational systems
influence patterns of sex segregation; and (iv) how fields of study (and occupations) become defined as either masculine or feminine.
HOW DO PATTERNS OF SEX SEGREGATION VARY BY RACE, CLASS, AND NATIVITY?
It is well known that educational outcomes differ by race/ethnicity, national
origin, and class in the United States. But little is known about how patterns
of sex segregation vary across these social group categories. Some recent
research is starting to fill this gap. Yingyi Ma’s (2009, 2011) studies of
gender distributions across fields of study in the United States reveal some
significant differences by race and socioeconomic status (SES). The latter
was measured with respect to parents’ education, occupational status, and
income. Ma found greater sex segregation among whites than among other
large racial/ethnic groups (2011), and she found that women from lower
SES backgrounds are more likely to select scientific and technical fields
than are women from higher SES backgrounds (2009). Ann Mullen’s (2014)
qualitative study of students at an elite, liberal arts university complements
these findings. For the most part, women students were more likely than
men to select majors on the basis of academic interests (rather than future
career opportunities or earnings). The few women who did prioritize salary
were from lower SES backgrounds. These studies raise some interesting
questions. For example, are less privileged groups generally more likely
to choose “practical” (as opposed to self-expressive) fields? Do patterns of
gender segregation in immigrants’ (or parents’) native countries influence
major choices in the receiving country?

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

7

HOW DO CURRICULAR PREFERENCES DEVELOP?
Girls’ and women’s attitudes toward specific fields of study vary a great
deal across time and space. Knowledge about the formation of curricular and
career aspirations could be broadened considerably by analysis of large-scale
surveys or in-depth interviews conducted in less economically and culturally
modern societies, and by greater attention to the post-1990 period, which was
marked by continued growth in female university enrollments, especially in
developing and transitional economies.
Because attitudes are tightly linked to outcomes, it is important that we
identify forces that influence career aspirations and curricular choices. Potentially relevant factors include the visibility of gender-nonconforming role
models at the societal, local, and familial levels. For example, young women’s
attitudes toward STEM fields of study might be influenced by the representation of women in STEM occupations at the national level, the intensiveness of
STEM training in their secondary schools, and the visibility to them of female
role models (including teachers and family members) in STEM occupations.
HOW DO ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS MATTER?
A third avenue for future research involves identifying how organizational
features of educational systems influence patterns of sex segregation. Since
World War II, educational systems in many countries have undergone
major restructuring at both the secondary and tertiary levels. Changes
have included diversification of institution types, proliferation of major
programs, increased elective offerings, and choice-based curricular specialization. This structural diversification has made it easier for students in
postmaterialist cultures to pursue personally selected, yet highly gendered
educational pathways. Small-scale comparisons provide some evidence that
girls and women are more likely to complete degrees in math and science in
educational systems where curricular choice is restricted at the secondary
level—either through policies that require all students to take math and
science throughout the secondary years, or through performance-based
tracking and course placement. Although such policies are clearly at odds
with Western ideals of individual choice and self-expression, it is important
that we learn more about whether they indeed weaken the penetration of
gender stereotypes or reduce peer influence on later course taking.
Features of academic departments and research laboratories also warrant
further attention. Mary Frank Fox (2000) has found that STEM departments
that grant a high percentage of advanced degrees to women share some
important features such as written guidelines for graduate study, a history
of leadership on gender issues, and a faculty committed to creating a good
climate for graduate education. She also has suggested that the widespread

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

“privatization” of graduate training, particularly within science and engineering, puts students’ fates in the hands of individual faculty who have
little accountability to departments. In-depth interviews and ethnographies
within these settings would help flesh out how the advisor–advisee relationship and the organizational characteristics of academic departments and
laboratories influence the retention of graduate students in nontraditional
disciplines.
HOW ARE FIELDS GENDER LABELED?
Finally, we see a need for more historical and qualitative research on the
specific mechanisms by which curricular fields become gender labeled. Interactional and organizational challenges faced by women in male-dominated
fields have been widely documented. But even when the local interactional
and organizational climate is “female friendly,” taken-for-granted beliefs
about the essentially masculine nature of core occupational tasks may
operate to discourage female entry and weaken retention. Wendy Faulkner
(2007), for instance, has shown how engineers draw symbolic boundaries
between different components of their work (e.g., the technical and social
dimensions) and between themselves and other professionals. These symbolic distinctions coincide closely with conventional gender binaries. As a
result, gender stereotypes are reinforced and women’s sense of belonging
in technical fields is weakened. Faulkner’s research focused on practicing
STEM professionals, but future work might examine how these symbolic
processes function in schools and universities. Cross-national research
would be helpful in discerning differences in symbolic boundary work in
countries with more or less gender-segregated STEM workforces.
REFERENCES
Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and
gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 641–666.
doi:10.1177/0003122411420815
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation
by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976.
doi:10.1086/595942
Charles, M., Harr, B., Cech, E., & Hendley, A. (2014). Who likes math where? Gender
differences in eighth-graders’ attitudes around the world. International Studies in
Sociology of Education, 24(1), 85–112. doi:10.1080/09620214.2014.895140
Correll, S. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging
career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113. doi:10.1177/
000312240406900106

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

9

Faulkner, W. (2007). ’Nuts and bolts and people’: Gender-troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 331–356. doi:10.1177/0306312706072175
Frank Fox, M. (2000). Organizational environments and doctoral degrees awarded
to women in science and engineering departments. Women’s Studies Quarterly,
28(1/2), 47–61.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and college major
choices—Gender, race/ethnic and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52(2),
211–234. doi:10.1525/sop.2009.52.2.211
Ma, Y. (2011). College major choice, occupational structure and demographic patterning by gender, race, and nativity. The Social Science Journal, 48, 112–129.
doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2010.05.004
Mullen, A. L. (2014). Gender, social background, and the choice of college
major in a liberal arts context. Gender & Society, 28(2), 289–312. doi:10.1177/
0891243213512721

FURTHER READING
Buchmann, C., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college
completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American
Sociological Review, 71, 515–541. doi:10.1177/000312240607100401
Charles, M. (2011). What gender is science? Contexts, 10(2), 22–28. doi:10.1177/
1536504211408795
England, P., & Li, S. (2006). Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971–2002. Gender and Society, 20(5), 657–677. doi:10.1177/
0891243206290753
Fenstermaker, S., & West, C. (Eds.) (2002). Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality,
power, and institutional change. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lagesen, V. A. (2008). A cyberfeminist utopia?: Perceptions of gender and computer
science among Malaysian women computer science students and faculty. Science,
Technology & Human Values, 33(1), 5–27. doi:10.1177/0162243907306192
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern
world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, K. J. (2011). The rise of choice in the U.S. university and college: 1910–2005.
Sociological Forum, 26(3), 601–622. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01264.x
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in
the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920.
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ALEXANDRA “ALI” HENDLEY SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Alexandra “Ali” Hendley is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at
Murray State University. Her current research examines private and

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

personal chefs—workers ambiguously positioned between the high-status,
male-dominated culinary profession and low-status, female-dominated
domestic work. It shows how these chefs both challenge and reinforce
inequalities through their efforts to negotiate tensions about their identity
and status.
http://www.murraystate.edu/Academics/CollegesDepartments/
CollegeOfHumanitiesAndFineArts/politicalScienceandSociology/Faculty/
AHendley.aspx
MARIA CHARLES SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Maria Charles is Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Director of Sex and Gender Research at the Broom
Center for Demography at UCSB. Her research explores the macrocultural
and organizational processes underlying different forms of social inequality
in the United States and around the world. This work has been published
in diverse sociology journals and in Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men (with David Grusky, Stanford University Press).
The cross-national comparative research described here has been supported
by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF awards 1036679 and 0332852).
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/maria-charles

RELATED ESSAYS
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Stereotype Content (Sociology), Beatrice H. Capestany and Lasana T. Harris
Why So Few Women in Mathematically Intensive Fields? (Psychology),
Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams
Gender, Religion, and State in the Middle East (Sociology), Mounira M.
Charrad and Amina Zarrugh
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
Exploring Opportunities in Cultural Diversity (Political Science), David D.
Laitin and Sangick Jeon

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

11

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
Gender and Women’s Influence in Public Settings (Political Science), Tali
Mendelberg et al.
Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E.
Tetlock
Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall
Gender and the Transition to Adulthood: A Diverse Pathways View (Sociology), Ingrid Schoon
Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith
Gender and Work (Sociology), Christine L. Williams and Megan Tobias Neely
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann



Gender Segregation
in Higher Education
ALEXANDRA HENDLEY and MARIA CHARLES

Abstract
During the second half of the twentieth century, systems of higher education
expanded and democratized around the world. Women’s participation increased
so dramatically that their numbers now surpass men’s in many industrialized
countries. But gender equalization has not occurred uniformly. Sex segregation of
majors and degree programs is a striking feature of modern educational systems
and a key reason for the ongoing social and economic inequality of women and men.
While significant gender inequality is found within educational systems worldwide,
recent evidence shows marked differences among countries and country groups
in their degree and pattern of sex segregation. This essay reviews foundational
research in this field, identifies emergent trends and cutting-edge lines of inquiry,
and poses questions for future research on men’s and women’s distribution across
educational institutions and fields of study. Much research on sex segregation in
higher education has focused on cross-national differences and historical trends.
A major question concerns the persistence of extreme gender differentiation even
in the most economically and socially modern contexts. Research findings to date
reveal a complex interplay between cultural beliefs, structural forms, and individual
cognition in generating and maintaining sex segregation in the modern world. In
order to advance research in this field, we suggest that future studies focus on: (i)
how patterns of sex segregation differ by race, ethnicity, class, and national origin;
(ii) how curricular preferences are formed; (iii) how characteristics of educational
systems influence patterns of sex segregation; and (iv) how fields of study (and
occupations) become defined as either masculine or feminine.

INTRODUCTION
During the second half of the twentieth century, systems of higher education expanded and democratized around the world. Women’s participation
increased so dramatically that their numbers now surpass men’s in many
industrialized countries. In fact, the majority of the world’s higher education
degree recipients are now women.

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

But gender equalization has not occurred uniformly. Sex segregation of
majors and degree programs is a striking feature of modern educational
systems and a key reason for the ongoing social and economic inequality
between women and men. While significant gender inequality is found
within educational systems worldwide, recent evidence shows marked
differences among countries and country groups in their degree and pattern
of sex segregation. These differences are often counterintuitive in that they
do not correspond to what one would expect given other commonly cited
indicators of women’s status in countries around the world.
Much research on sex segregation in higher education has focused on
cross-national differences and historical trends. A major question concerns
the persistence of extreme gender differentiation even in the most economically and socially modern contexts. Research findings to date reveal a
complex interplay between cultural beliefs, structural forms, and individual
cognition in generating and maintaining sex segregation in the modern
world. The present essay reviews foundational research in this field, identifies emergent trends and cutting-edge lines of inquiry, and poses questions
for future research on men’s and women’s distribution across educational
institution types and fields of study.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
EXPANSION AND FEMINIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Around the middle of the twentieth century, national policies started to
emerge in Western industrial democracies that gradually redefined the
role of higher education. The primary purpose of universities and colleges
shifted from the training and socialization of (male) elites to the broad-scale
production of human capital. Participation began to expand and diversify
accordingly. In the United States, women’s enrollment rates have been
increasing since the 1960s, surpassing male rates by the early 1980s. As of
2010, women received 57% of all bachelor’s degrees conferred in the United
States. The female enrollment advantage holds for all large racial and ethnic
groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and Whites.
The changes in higher education that first occurred in the United States
and the affluent West are now evident worldwide. The number of tertiary (higher education) students reached 100 million by the turn of the
twenty-first century, with women’s global enrollment reaching parity with
men’s around 1990. As of 2007, the world female-to-male enrollment ratio
was 1.08. However, countries and country groups continue to differ substantially in female representation. Men still comprise the majority of higher
education students in less economically developed societies, and especially

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

3

large enrollment gaps persist where laws and cultural norms restrict female
participation in the public sphere—in some Arab countries, for example.
Many scholars have interpreted steady increases in female enrollment as
part of a secular or “evolutionary” trend toward gender equality and meritocratic value systems. From a functionalist or modernization perspective,
the so-called degendering of public-sphere institutions is attributable to
increased pressures for economic efficiency and the higher economic cost of
discrimination in competitive market economies. For other scholars, cultural
values are the driving force: according to sociologists John Meyer, Francisco
Ramirez, and others, powerful egalitarian ideals have diffused worldwide
through social movements, professional associations, and international
organizations. Education is now seen as a fundamental human right and
essential to national economic development and prosperity.
PERSISTENCE OF SEX SEGREGATION WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION
Optimistic accounts of degendering are belied, however, by the persistence
of strong segregation within educational institutions. While women’s access
to higher education has grown dramatically over the past five decades, the
distribution of men and women across specific fields of study has seen far
less change—and the change that has occurred is not always in an integrative
direction. Gender segregation across fields of study declined rapidly during
the 1970s in the United States, but this trend flattened out by about 1985.
Among 2010 degree recipients, the National Center for Education Statistics
reports that women earned 80% of education degrees and 77% of psychology
degrees, but only 18% of computer science and 17% of engineering degrees.
The figure for computer science actually represents a decline since 2000,
when 28% of degrees conferred in this field went to women.
We see similar patterns at the global level. From 1965 to 1990, sex segregation by field of study declined, but only slightly. UNESCO estimates that 70%
of the world’s education degrees and 56% of the world’s humanities degrees
went to women in 2008. In the same year, women received only 29% of science
degrees and 16% of engineering degrees worldwide. But differences among
countries are large. Contrary to what might be expected from modernization
accounts of women’s changing status, recent studies have revealed that sex
segregation across fields of study is not stronger (and is sometimes weaker)
in less economically and culturally modern societies. Malaysia, for instance,
boasts among the world’s most gender-integrated science programs, with
women making up 57% of the country’s degree recipients. Women make up
nearly half of engineering graduates in Indonesia, while some of the most
male-dominated engineering programs are found in a very affluent collection

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

of countries that includes the United States, Japan, Switzerland, and Saudi
Arabia.
The persistence of sex segregation by field of study should be cause for concern. Not only do degrees in female-dominated fields lead to lower paying
jobs, but persistent sex segregation reinforces gender stereotypes and limits
the range of perceived career options for younger generations. Moreover, the
underutilization of female talent may be a threat to prosperity and economic
development in some contexts, especially given severe global shortages of
workers in scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
National trends and cross-national patterns of sex segregation in higher
education are difficult to reconcile with evolutionary accounts suggesting a
declining significance of gender. Two lines of scholarship provide promising
new analytical tools for understanding the persistence of sex segregation:
one on the interplay between cultural gender beliefs and individual cognition, and one on the role of context, specifically organizational arrangements
and cultural belief systems, in shaping patterns of sex segregation.
THE INTERPLAY OF CULTURE AND COGNITION
An important new stream of research on gender inequality considers how
taken-for-granted cultural stereotypes influence individual cognition and
behaviors. These analyses demonstrate that widely held beliefs about gender influence others’ evaluations of our task performance in stereotypical
directions. Biased assessments in turn lead us to judge our own competencies more favorably on gender-conforming activities than on gender
nonconforming ones.
Shelley Correll’s (2004) experimental research documents the powerful
self-fulfilling effects of cultural gender beliefs. Correll purported to administer a test of “contrast sensitivity” to undergraduate students. Before the
test, subjects were told either that men generally perform better or that men
and women do equally well on the test (which, in fact, had no objectively
right or wrong answers). In the first group, men evaluated themselves
more highly than did women, and they were also more likely to declare
aspirations to work in a job requiring “contrast sensitivity.” These and
other findings suggest that beliefs about gender difference—even if they
are wrong—can produce gender differences in self-confidence and push
us toward gender-conforming educational and occupational paths. These
outcomes in turn reinforce stereotypes about men’s and women’s innately
different affinities.

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

5

Cognitive biases about gender difference still affect those who choose nontraditional paths. Recent survey research on college students by Erin Cech
and colleagues (Cech, Rubineau, Silbey, & Seron, 2011) found that female
engineering majors regarded themselves as less professionally competent
and less well suited to the professional culture of engineering than did their
male counterparts. Lower professional role confidence contributed to attrition from the field.
Even those who do not believe in gender stereotypes know that many
others do. People therefore expect to be held accountable to norms of
gender-appropriate behavior. The behavioral manifestations of this cultural
knowledge, sometimes termed doing gender, may include the choice of a
gender-conforming major. For example, male students may wish to affirm
their masculinity by choosing a technical field. Moreover, men and women
may gradually internalize gender-conforming beliefs to which they are
continually held accountable.
CONTEXT MATTERS
A second new stream of research explores how macrocontextual factors,
such as organizational forms and cultural value systems, influence variability in sex segregation. Maria Charles and Karen Bradley (2009) have argued
that some of the very same organizational forms and policy initiatives that
encouraged increased female enrollment in higher education during the
mid-twentieth century also exacerbated sex segregation within them. In
1953, for example, UNESCO issued a formal resolution that aimed to boost
female representation in higher education by offering women more opportunities to specialize in fields well suited to “feminine aptitudes” and female
careers paths. “Feminine aptitudes” were accommodated through establishment of 2-year institutions and expansion of programs in female-labeled
fields such as home economics, health care, office administration, and
hospitality.
Related research has explored the effects of so-called postmaterialist
value systems on gender inequality. Comparative attitudinal research by
Ronald Inglehart (1997) and his colleagues has shown a connection between
national prosperity and the prioritization of self-expressive—as opposed to
material—goals. Charles and Bradley (2009) have fused Inglehart’s cultural
arguments with research on cognitive gender biases to build a framework
for understanding the higher levels of sex segregation in affluent “postmaterialist” societies. In contexts where students are encouraged to “follow their
passions” and to choose fields that they love, educational and occupational
choices come to represent much more than practical economic investments;
they are also acts of self-realization and individual affirmation.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Diverse cognitive biases may make young people expect to love doing things
that they think others in their gender category love (and that they think they
will be good at). As a result, individuals’ efforts to self-realize very often align
with prevailing gender conventions. Gender-typical choices in turn reinforce
cultural beliefs about gender differences and may also bias expectations of
the next generation. Consistent with the argument linking postmaterialist
values with sex segregation, Charles, Harr, Cech, and Hendley (2014) found
a larger gap between boys and girls in “liking math” and aspiring to a mathematically related job in affluent societies than in economically less developed
societies.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We see several ways of advancing the study of gender segregation in higher
education. In particular, we suggest more research on (i) how patterns of sex
segregation differ by race, ethnicity, class, and national origin; (ii) how curricular preferences are formed; (iii) how characteristics of educational systems
influence patterns of sex segregation; and (iv) how fields of study (and occupations) become defined as either masculine or feminine.
HOW DO PATTERNS OF SEX SEGREGATION VARY BY RACE, CLASS, AND NATIVITY?
It is well known that educational outcomes differ by race/ethnicity, national
origin, and class in the United States. But little is known about how patterns
of sex segregation vary across these social group categories. Some recent
research is starting to fill this gap. Yingyi Ma’s (2009, 2011) studies of
gender distributions across fields of study in the United States reveal some
significant differences by race and socioeconomic status (SES). The latter
was measured with respect to parents’ education, occupational status, and
income. Ma found greater sex segregation among whites than among other
large racial/ethnic groups (2011), and she found that women from lower
SES backgrounds are more likely to select scientific and technical fields
than are women from higher SES backgrounds (2009). Ann Mullen’s (2014)
qualitative study of students at an elite, liberal arts university complements
these findings. For the most part, women students were more likely than
men to select majors on the basis of academic interests (rather than future
career opportunities or earnings). The few women who did prioritize salary
were from lower SES backgrounds. These studies raise some interesting
questions. For example, are less privileged groups generally more likely
to choose “practical” (as opposed to self-expressive) fields? Do patterns of
gender segregation in immigrants’ (or parents’) native countries influence
major choices in the receiving country?

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

7

HOW DO CURRICULAR PREFERENCES DEVELOP?
Girls’ and women’s attitudes toward specific fields of study vary a great
deal across time and space. Knowledge about the formation of curricular and
career aspirations could be broadened considerably by analysis of large-scale
surveys or in-depth interviews conducted in less economically and culturally
modern societies, and by greater attention to the post-1990 period, which was
marked by continued growth in female university enrollments, especially in
developing and transitional economies.
Because attitudes are tightly linked to outcomes, it is important that we
identify forces that influence career aspirations and curricular choices. Potentially relevant factors include the visibility of gender-nonconforming role
models at the societal, local, and familial levels. For example, young women’s
attitudes toward STEM fields of study might be influenced by the representation of women in STEM occupations at the national level, the intensiveness of
STEM training in their secondary schools, and the visibility to them of female
role models (including teachers and family members) in STEM occupations.
HOW DO ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS MATTER?
A third avenue for future research involves identifying how organizational
features of educational systems influence patterns of sex segregation. Since
World War II, educational systems in many countries have undergone
major restructuring at both the secondary and tertiary levels. Changes
have included diversification of institution types, proliferation of major
programs, increased elective offerings, and choice-based curricular specialization. This structural diversification has made it easier for students in
postmaterialist cultures to pursue personally selected, yet highly gendered
educational pathways. Small-scale comparisons provide some evidence that
girls and women are more likely to complete degrees in math and science in
educational systems where curricular choice is restricted at the secondary
level—either through policies that require all students to take math and
science throughout the secondary years, or through performance-based
tracking and course placement. Although such policies are clearly at odds
with Western ideals of individual choice and self-expression, it is important
that we learn more about whether they indeed weaken the penetration of
gender stereotypes or reduce peer influence on later course taking.
Features of academic departments and research laboratories also warrant
further attention. Mary Frank Fox (2000) has found that STEM departments
that grant a high percentage of advanced degrees to women share some
important features such as written guidelines for graduate study, a history
of leadership on gender issues, and a faculty committed to creating a good
climate for graduate education. She also has suggested that the widespread

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

“privatization” of graduate training, particularly within science and engineering, puts students’ fates in the hands of individual faculty who have
little accountability to departments. In-depth interviews and ethnographies
within these settings would help flesh out how the advisor–advisee relationship and the organizational characteristics of academic departments and
laboratories influence the retention of graduate students in nontraditional
disciplines.
HOW ARE FIELDS GENDER LABELED?
Finally, we see a need for more historical and qualitative research on the
specific mechanisms by which curricular fields become gender labeled. Interactional and organizational challenges faced by women in male-dominated
fields have been widely documented. But even when the local interactional
and organizational climate is “female friendly,” taken-for-granted beliefs
about the essentially masculine nature of core occupational tasks may
operate to discourage female entry and weaken retention. Wendy Faulkner
(2007), for instance, has shown how engineers draw symbolic boundaries
between different components of their work (e.g., the technical and social
dimensions) and between themselves and other professionals. These symbolic distinctions coincide closely with conventional gender binaries. As a
result, gender stereotypes are reinforced and women’s sense of belonging
in technical fields is weakened. Faulkner’s research focused on practicing
STEM professionals, but future work might examine how these symbolic
processes function in schools and universities. Cross-national research
would be helpful in discerning differences in symbolic boundary work in
countries with more or less gender-segregated STEM workforces.
REFERENCES
Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and
gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 641–666.
doi:10.1177/0003122411420815
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation
by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976.
doi:10.1086/595942
Charles, M., Harr, B., Cech, E., & Hendley, A. (2014). Who likes math where? Gender
differences in eighth-graders’ attitudes around the world. International Studies in
Sociology of Education, 24(1), 85–112. doi:10.1080/09620214.2014.895140
Correll, S. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging
career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113. doi:10.1177/
000312240406900106

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

9

Faulkner, W. (2007). ’Nuts and bolts and people’: Gender-troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 331–356. doi:10.1177/0306312706072175
Frank Fox, M. (2000). Organizational environments and doctoral degrees awarded
to women in science and engineering departments. Women’s Studies Quarterly,
28(1/2), 47–61.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and college major
choices—Gender, race/ethnic and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52(2),
211–234. doi:10.1525/sop.2009.52.2.211
Ma, Y. (2011). College major choice, occupational structure and demographic patterning by gender, race, and nativity. The Social Science Journal, 48, 112–129.
doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2010.05.004
Mullen, A. L. (2014). Gender, social background, and the choice of college
major in a liberal arts context. Gender & Society, 28(2), 289–312. doi:10.1177/
0891243213512721

FURTHER READING
Buchmann, C., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college
completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American
Sociological Review, 71, 515–541. doi:10.1177/000312240607100401
Charles, M. (2011). What gender is science? Contexts, 10(2), 22–28. doi:10.1177/
1536504211408795
England, P., & Li, S. (2006). Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971–2002. Gender and Society, 20(5), 657–677. doi:10.1177/
0891243206290753
Fenstermaker, S., & West, C. (Eds.) (2002). Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality,
power, and institutional change. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lagesen, V. A. (2008). A cyberfeminist utopia?: Perceptions of gender and computer
science among Malaysian women computer science students and faculty. Science,
Technology & Human Values, 33(1), 5–27. doi:10.1177/0162243907306192
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern
world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, K. J. (2011). The rise of choice in the U.S. university and college: 1910–2005.
Sociological Forum, 26(3), 601–622. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01264.x
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in
the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920.
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ALEXANDRA “ALI” HENDLEY SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Alexandra “Ali” Hendley is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at
Murray State University. Her current research examines private and

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

personal chefs—workers ambiguously positioned between the high-status,
male-dominated culinary profession and low-status, female-dominated
domestic work. It shows how these chefs both challenge and reinforce
inequalities through their efforts to negotiate tensions about their identity
and status.
http://www.murraystate.edu/Academics/CollegesDepartments/
CollegeOfHumanitiesAndFineArts/politicalScienceandSociology/Faculty/
AHendley.aspx
MARIA CHARLES SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Maria Charles is Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Director of Sex and Gender Research at the Broom
Center for Demography at UCSB. Her research explores the macrocultural
and organizational processes underlying different forms of social inequality
in the United States and around the world. This work has been published
in diverse sociology journals and in Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men (with David Grusky, Stanford University Press).
The cross-national comparative research described here has been supported
by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF awards 1036679 and 0332852).
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/maria-charles

RELATED ESSAYS
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Stereotype Content (Sociology), Beatrice H. Capestany and Lasana T. Harris
Why So Few Women in Mathematically Intensive Fields? (Psychology),
Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams
Gender, Religion, and State in the Middle East (Sociology), Mounira M.
Charrad and Amina Zarrugh
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
Exploring Opportunities in Cultural Diversity (Political Science), David D.
Laitin and Sangick Jeon

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

11

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
Gender and Women’s Influence in Public Settings (Political Science), Tali
Mendelberg et al.
Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E.
Tetlock
Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall
Gender and the Transition to Adulthood: A Diverse Pathways View (Sociology), Ingrid Schoon
Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith
Gender and Work (Sociology), Christine L. Williams and Megan Tobias Neely
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann


Gender Segregation
in Higher Education
ALEXANDRA HENDLEY and MARIA CHARLES

Abstract
During the second half of the twentieth century, systems of higher education
expanded and democratized around the world. Women’s participation increased
so dramatically that their numbers now surpass men’s in many industrialized
countries. But gender equalization has not occurred uniformly. Sex segregation of
majors and degree programs is a striking feature of modern educational systems
and a key reason for the ongoing social and economic inequality of women and men.
While significant gender inequality is found within educational systems worldwide,
recent evidence shows marked differences among countries and country groups
in their degree and pattern of sex segregation. This essay reviews foundational
research in this field, identifies emergent trends and cutting-edge lines of inquiry,
and poses questions for future research on men’s and women’s distribution across
educational institutions and fields of study. Much research on sex segregation in
higher education has focused on cross-national differences and historical trends.
A major question concerns the persistence of extreme gender differentiation even
in the most economically and socially modern contexts. Research findings to date
reveal a complex interplay between cultural beliefs, structural forms, and individual
cognition in generating and maintaining sex segregation in the modern world. In
order to advance research in this field, we suggest that future studies focus on: (i)
how patterns of sex segregation differ by race, ethnicity, class, and national origin;
(ii) how curricular preferences are formed; (iii) how characteristics of educational
systems influence patterns of sex segregation; and (iv) how fields of study (and
occupations) become defined as either masculine or feminine.

INTRODUCTION
During the second half of the twentieth century, systems of higher education expanded and democratized around the world. Women’s participation
increased so dramatically that their numbers now surpass men’s in many
industrialized countries. In fact, the majority of the world’s higher education
degree recipients are now women.

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

But gender equalization has not occurred uniformly. Sex segregation of
majors and degree programs is a striking feature of modern educational
systems and a key reason for the ongoing social and economic inequality
between women and men. While significant gender inequality is found
within educational systems worldwide, recent evidence shows marked
differences among countries and country groups in their degree and pattern
of sex segregation. These differences are often counterintuitive in that they
do not correspond to what one would expect given other commonly cited
indicators of women’s status in countries around the world.
Much research on sex segregation in higher education has focused on
cross-national differences and historical trends. A major question concerns
the persistence of extreme gender differentiation even in the most economically and socially modern contexts. Research findings to date reveal a
complex interplay between cultural beliefs, structural forms, and individual
cognition in generating and maintaining sex segregation in the modern
world. The present essay reviews foundational research in this field, identifies emergent trends and cutting-edge lines of inquiry, and poses questions
for future research on men’s and women’s distribution across educational
institution types and fields of study.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
EXPANSION AND FEMINIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Around the middle of the twentieth century, national policies started to
emerge in Western industrial democracies that gradually redefined the
role of higher education. The primary purpose of universities and colleges
shifted from the training and socialization of (male) elites to the broad-scale
production of human capital. Participation began to expand and diversify
accordingly. In the United States, women’s enrollment rates have been
increasing since the 1960s, surpassing male rates by the early 1980s. As of
2010, women received 57% of all bachelor’s degrees conferred in the United
States. The female enrollment advantage holds for all large racial and ethnic
groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and Whites.
The changes in higher education that first occurred in the United States
and the affluent West are now evident worldwide. The number of tertiary (higher education) students reached 100 million by the turn of the
twenty-first century, with women’s global enrollment reaching parity with
men’s around 1990. As of 2007, the world female-to-male enrollment ratio
was 1.08. However, countries and country groups continue to differ substantially in female representation. Men still comprise the majority of higher
education students in less economically developed societies, and especially

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

3

large enrollment gaps persist where laws and cultural norms restrict female
participation in the public sphere—in some Arab countries, for example.
Many scholars have interpreted steady increases in female enrollment as
part of a secular or “evolutionary” trend toward gender equality and meritocratic value systems. From a functionalist or modernization perspective,
the so-called degendering of public-sphere institutions is attributable to
increased pressures for economic efficiency and the higher economic cost of
discrimination in competitive market economies. For other scholars, cultural
values are the driving force: according to sociologists John Meyer, Francisco
Ramirez, and others, powerful egalitarian ideals have diffused worldwide
through social movements, professional associations, and international
organizations. Education is now seen as a fundamental human right and
essential to national economic development and prosperity.
PERSISTENCE OF SEX SEGREGATION WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION
Optimistic accounts of degendering are belied, however, by the persistence
of strong segregation within educational institutions. While women’s access
to higher education has grown dramatically over the past five decades, the
distribution of men and women across specific fields of study has seen far
less change—and the change that has occurred is not always in an integrative
direction. Gender segregation across fields of study declined rapidly during
the 1970s in the United States, but this trend flattened out by about 1985.
Among 2010 degree recipients, the National Center for Education Statistics
reports that women earned 80% of education degrees and 77% of psychology
degrees, but only 18% of computer science and 17% of engineering degrees.
The figure for computer science actually represents a decline since 2000,
when 28% of degrees conferred in this field went to women.
We see similar patterns at the global level. From 1965 to 1990, sex segregation by field of study declined, but only slightly. UNESCO estimates that 70%
of the world’s education degrees and 56% of the world’s humanities degrees
went to women in 2008. In the same year, women received only 29% of science
degrees and 16% of engineering degrees worldwide. But differences among
countries are large. Contrary to what might be expected from modernization
accounts of women’s changing status, recent studies have revealed that sex
segregation across fields of study is not stronger (and is sometimes weaker)
in less economically and culturally modern societies. Malaysia, for instance,
boasts among the world’s most gender-integrated science programs, with
women making up 57% of the country’s degree recipients. Women make up
nearly half of engineering graduates in Indonesia, while some of the most
male-dominated engineering programs are found in a very affluent collection

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

of countries that includes the United States, Japan, Switzerland, and Saudi
Arabia.
The persistence of sex segregation by field of study should be cause for concern. Not only do degrees in female-dominated fields lead to lower paying
jobs, but persistent sex segregation reinforces gender stereotypes and limits
the range of perceived career options for younger generations. Moreover, the
underutilization of female talent may be a threat to prosperity and economic
development in some contexts, especially given severe global shortages of
workers in scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
National trends and cross-national patterns of sex segregation in higher
education are difficult to reconcile with evolutionary accounts suggesting a
declining significance of gender. Two lines of scholarship provide promising
new analytical tools for understanding the persistence of sex segregation:
one on the interplay between cultural gender beliefs and individual cognition, and one on the role of context, specifically organizational arrangements
and cultural belief systems, in shaping patterns of sex segregation.
THE INTERPLAY OF CULTURE AND COGNITION
An important new stream of research on gender inequality considers how
taken-for-granted cultural stereotypes influence individual cognition and
behaviors. These analyses demonstrate that widely held beliefs about gender influence others’ evaluations of our task performance in stereotypical
directions. Biased assessments in turn lead us to judge our own competencies more favorably on gender-conforming activities than on gender
nonconforming ones.
Shelley Correll’s (2004) experimental research documents the powerful
self-fulfilling effects of cultural gender beliefs. Correll purported to administer a test of “contrast sensitivity” to undergraduate students. Before the
test, subjects were told either that men generally perform better or that men
and women do equally well on the test (which, in fact, had no objectively
right or wrong answers). In the first group, men evaluated themselves
more highly than did women, and they were also more likely to declare
aspirations to work in a job requiring “contrast sensitivity.” These and
other findings suggest that beliefs about gender difference—even if they
are wrong—can produce gender differences in self-confidence and push
us toward gender-conforming educational and occupational paths. These
outcomes in turn reinforce stereotypes about men’s and women’s innately
different affinities.

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

5

Cognitive biases about gender difference still affect those who choose nontraditional paths. Recent survey research on college students by Erin Cech
and colleagues (Cech, Rubineau, Silbey, & Seron, 2011) found that female
engineering majors regarded themselves as less professionally competent
and less well suited to the professional culture of engineering than did their
male counterparts. Lower professional role confidence contributed to attrition from the field.
Even those who do not believe in gender stereotypes know that many
others do. People therefore expect to be held accountable to norms of
gender-appropriate behavior. The behavioral manifestations of this cultural
knowledge, sometimes termed doing gender, may include the choice of a
gender-conforming major. For example, male students may wish to affirm
their masculinity by choosing a technical field. Moreover, men and women
may gradually internalize gender-conforming beliefs to which they are
continually held accountable.
CONTEXT MATTERS
A second new stream of research explores how macrocontextual factors,
such as organizational forms and cultural value systems, influence variability in sex segregation. Maria Charles and Karen Bradley (2009) have argued
that some of the very same organizational forms and policy initiatives that
encouraged increased female enrollment in higher education during the
mid-twentieth century also exacerbated sex segregation within them. In
1953, for example, UNESCO issued a formal resolution that aimed to boost
female representation in higher education by offering women more opportunities to specialize in fields well suited to “feminine aptitudes” and female
careers paths. “Feminine aptitudes” were accommodated through establishment of 2-year institutions and expansion of programs in female-labeled
fields such as home economics, health care, office administration, and
hospitality.
Related research has explored the effects of so-called postmaterialist
value systems on gender inequality. Comparative attitudinal research by
Ronald Inglehart (1997) and his colleagues has shown a connection between
national prosperity and the prioritization of self-expressive—as opposed to
material—goals. Charles and Bradley (2009) have fused Inglehart’s cultural
arguments with research on cognitive gender biases to build a framework
for understanding the higher levels of sex segregation in affluent “postmaterialist” societies. In contexts where students are encouraged to “follow their
passions” and to choose fields that they love, educational and occupational
choices come to represent much more than practical economic investments;
they are also acts of self-realization and individual affirmation.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Diverse cognitive biases may make young people expect to love doing things
that they think others in their gender category love (and that they think they
will be good at). As a result, individuals’ efforts to self-realize very often align
with prevailing gender conventions. Gender-typical choices in turn reinforce
cultural beliefs about gender differences and may also bias expectations of
the next generation. Consistent with the argument linking postmaterialist
values with sex segregation, Charles, Harr, Cech, and Hendley (2014) found
a larger gap between boys and girls in “liking math” and aspiring to a mathematically related job in affluent societies than in economically less developed
societies.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We see several ways of advancing the study of gender segregation in higher
education. In particular, we suggest more research on (i) how patterns of sex
segregation differ by race, ethnicity, class, and national origin; (ii) how curricular preferences are formed; (iii) how characteristics of educational systems
influence patterns of sex segregation; and (iv) how fields of study (and occupations) become defined as either masculine or feminine.
HOW DO PATTERNS OF SEX SEGREGATION VARY BY RACE, CLASS, AND NATIVITY?
It is well known that educational outcomes differ by race/ethnicity, national
origin, and class in the United States. But little is known about how patterns
of sex segregation vary across these social group categories. Some recent
research is starting to fill this gap. Yingyi Ma’s (2009, 2011) studies of
gender distributions across fields of study in the United States reveal some
significant differences by race and socioeconomic status (SES). The latter
was measured with respect to parents’ education, occupational status, and
income. Ma found greater sex segregation among whites than among other
large racial/ethnic groups (2011), and she found that women from lower
SES backgrounds are more likely to select scientific and technical fields
than are women from higher SES backgrounds (2009). Ann Mullen’s (2014)
qualitative study of students at an elite, liberal arts university complements
these findings. For the most part, women students were more likely than
men to select majors on the basis of academic interests (rather than future
career opportunities or earnings). The few women who did prioritize salary
were from lower SES backgrounds. These studies raise some interesting
questions. For example, are less privileged groups generally more likely
to choose “practical” (as opposed to self-expressive) fields? Do patterns of
gender segregation in immigrants’ (or parents’) native countries influence
major choices in the receiving country?

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

7

HOW DO CURRICULAR PREFERENCES DEVELOP?
Girls’ and women’s attitudes toward specific fields of study vary a great
deal across time and space. Knowledge about the formation of curricular and
career aspirations could be broadened considerably by analysis of large-scale
surveys or in-depth interviews conducted in less economically and culturally
modern societies, and by greater attention to the post-1990 period, which was
marked by continued growth in female university enrollments, especially in
developing and transitional economies.
Because attitudes are tightly linked to outcomes, it is important that we
identify forces that influence career aspirations and curricular choices. Potentially relevant factors include the visibility of gender-nonconforming role
models at the societal, local, and familial levels. For example, young women’s
attitudes toward STEM fields of study might be influenced by the representation of women in STEM occupations at the national level, the intensiveness of
STEM training in their secondary schools, and the visibility to them of female
role models (including teachers and family members) in STEM occupations.
HOW DO ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS MATTER?
A third avenue for future research involves identifying how organizational
features of educational systems influence patterns of sex segregation. Since
World War II, educational systems in many countries have undergone
major restructuring at both the secondary and tertiary levels. Changes
have included diversification of institution types, proliferation of major
programs, increased elective offerings, and choice-based curricular specialization. This structural diversification has made it easier for students in
postmaterialist cultures to pursue personally selected, yet highly gendered
educational pathways. Small-scale comparisons provide some evidence that
girls and women are more likely to complete degrees in math and science in
educational systems where curricular choice is restricted at the secondary
level—either through policies that require all students to take math and
science throughout the secondary years, or through performance-based
tracking and course placement. Although such policies are clearly at odds
with Western ideals of individual choice and self-expression, it is important
that we learn more about whether they indeed weaken the penetration of
gender stereotypes or reduce peer influence on later course taking.
Features of academic departments and research laboratories also warrant
further attention. Mary Frank Fox (2000) has found that STEM departments
that grant a high percentage of advanced degrees to women share some
important features such as written guidelines for graduate study, a history
of leadership on gender issues, and a faculty committed to creating a good
climate for graduate education. She also has suggested that the widespread

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

“privatization” of graduate training, particularly within science and engineering, puts students’ fates in the hands of individual faculty who have
little accountability to departments. In-depth interviews and ethnographies
within these settings would help flesh out how the advisor–advisee relationship and the organizational characteristics of academic departments and
laboratories influence the retention of graduate students in nontraditional
disciplines.
HOW ARE FIELDS GENDER LABELED?
Finally, we see a need for more historical and qualitative research on the
specific mechanisms by which curricular fields become gender labeled. Interactional and organizational challenges faced by women in male-dominated
fields have been widely documented. But even when the local interactional
and organizational climate is “female friendly,” taken-for-granted beliefs
about the essentially masculine nature of core occupational tasks may
operate to discourage female entry and weaken retention. Wendy Faulkner
(2007), for instance, has shown how engineers draw symbolic boundaries
between different components of their work (e.g., the technical and social
dimensions) and between themselves and other professionals. These symbolic distinctions coincide closely with conventional gender binaries. As a
result, gender stereotypes are reinforced and women’s sense of belonging
in technical fields is weakened. Faulkner’s research focused on practicing
STEM professionals, but future work might examine how these symbolic
processes function in schools and universities. Cross-national research
would be helpful in discerning differences in symbolic boundary work in
countries with more or less gender-segregated STEM workforces.
REFERENCES
Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and
gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 641–666.
doi:10.1177/0003122411420815
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation
by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976.
doi:10.1086/595942
Charles, M., Harr, B., Cech, E., & Hendley, A. (2014). Who likes math where? Gender
differences in eighth-graders’ attitudes around the world. International Studies in
Sociology of Education, 24(1), 85–112. doi:10.1080/09620214.2014.895140
Correll, S. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging
career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113. doi:10.1177/
000312240406900106

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

9

Faulkner, W. (2007). ’Nuts and bolts and people’: Gender-troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 331–356. doi:10.1177/0306312706072175
Frank Fox, M. (2000). Organizational environments and doctoral degrees awarded
to women in science and engineering departments. Women’s Studies Quarterly,
28(1/2), 47–61.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and college major
choices—Gender, race/ethnic and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52(2),
211–234. doi:10.1525/sop.2009.52.2.211
Ma, Y. (2011). College major choice, occupational structure and demographic patterning by gender, race, and nativity. The Social Science Journal, 48, 112–129.
doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2010.05.004
Mullen, A. L. (2014). Gender, social background, and the choice of college
major in a liberal arts context. Gender & Society, 28(2), 289–312. doi:10.1177/
0891243213512721

FURTHER READING
Buchmann, C., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college
completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American
Sociological Review, 71, 515–541. doi:10.1177/000312240607100401
Charles, M. (2011). What gender is science? Contexts, 10(2), 22–28. doi:10.1177/
1536504211408795
England, P., & Li, S. (2006). Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971–2002. Gender and Society, 20(5), 657–677. doi:10.1177/
0891243206290753
Fenstermaker, S., & West, C. (Eds.) (2002). Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality,
power, and institutional change. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lagesen, V. A. (2008). A cyberfeminist utopia?: Perceptions of gender and computer
science among Malaysian women computer science students and faculty. Science,
Technology & Human Values, 33(1), 5–27. doi:10.1177/0162243907306192
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern
world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, K. J. (2011). The rise of choice in the U.S. university and college: 1910–2005.
Sociological Forum, 26(3), 601–622. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01264.x
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in
the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920.
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ALEXANDRA “ALI” HENDLEY SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Alexandra “Ali” Hendley is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at
Murray State University. Her current research examines private and

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

personal chefs—workers ambiguously positioned between the high-status,
male-dominated culinary profession and low-status, female-dominated
domestic work. It shows how these chefs both challenge and reinforce
inequalities through their efforts to negotiate tensions about their identity
and status.
http://www.murraystate.edu/Academics/CollegesDepartments/
CollegeOfHumanitiesAndFineArts/politicalScienceandSociology/Faculty/
AHendley.aspx
MARIA CHARLES SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Maria Charles is Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Director of Sex and Gender Research at the Broom
Center for Demography at UCSB. Her research explores the macrocultural
and organizational processes underlying different forms of social inequality
in the United States and around the world. This work has been published
in diverse sociology journals and in Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men (with David Grusky, Stanford University Press).
The cross-national comparative research described here has been supported
by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF awards 1036679 and 0332852).
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/maria-charles

RELATED ESSAYS
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Stereotype Content (Sociology), Beatrice H. Capestany and Lasana T. Harris
Why So Few Women in Mathematically Intensive Fields? (Psychology),
Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams
Gender, Religion, and State in the Middle East (Sociology), Mounira M.
Charrad and Amina Zarrugh
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
Exploring Opportunities in Cultural Diversity (Political Science), David D.
Laitin and Sangick Jeon

Gender Segregation in Higher Education

11

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann
Gender and Women’s Influence in Public Settings (Political Science), Tali
Mendelberg et al.
Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E.
Tetlock
Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall
Gender and the Transition to Adulthood: A Diverse Pathways View (Sociology), Ingrid Schoon
Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith
Gender and Work (Sociology), Christine L. Williams and Megan Tobias Neely
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment (Sociology), Anne McDaniel
and Claudia Buchmann



Media

Gender Segregation in Higher Education