Racially minoritized students in the United States constitute 30% of the U.S. population, but students from these populations represent a smaller proportion of those who earn science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate degrees. This disproportionality contributes to race/ethnic income, status, and power inequalities linked to STEM careers. Using a combination of vote counting and narrative approaches, the authors synthesize 50 recent articles about the factors related to college students’ STEM participation. Consistent with cumulative disadvantage and critical race theories, findings reveal that the disproportionality of racially minoritized students in STEM is related to their inferior secondary school preparation; the presence of racialized lower quality educational contexts; reduced levels of psychosocial factors associated with STEM success; less exposure to inclusive and appealing curricula and instruction; lower levels of family social, cultural, and financial capital that foster academic outcomes; and fewer prospects for supplemental STEM learning opportunities. Policy implications of findings are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Much of the writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) is neglected within sociology. Yet building on the work of Auguste Comte, Proudhon was an influential, if controversial, social theorist throughout the 19th century. Proudhon, “the father of anarchism,” held an understanding of progress antagonistic toward that of Marx, his contemporary within the emerging socialist movement. While Comte and Marx focused on knowledge or class struggle respectively as the source of progress within society, Proudhon argued that only justice generates social progress. Several notable French sociologists have written on the importance of Proudhon’s work, but contemporary sociology continues to neglect his ideas. In what follows, I first outline Proudhon’s place in sociology. Then, I describe his law of progress and the “three revolutions in justice.” Next, I derive several theoretical propositions from Proudhon’s idea of justice. Lastly, I examine what a serious study of Proudhonian justice can contribute to the discipline of sociology as a whole.

Background/Context: The underrepresentation of students from lower socioeconomic status (LSES) backgrounds among college graduates with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees, and consequently in STEM occupations, is a concern with respect to reducing, perpetuating, or increasing social inequality. The loss of their talent and creativity also poses a threat to the future of the U.S. economy, scientific knowledge generation, and national security. This study uses two theoretical frameworks—bounded rationality and effectively maintained inequality (EMI)—to identify the pathways toward STEM for students from lower and higher SES backgrounds, given the well-documented differences in their family resources and opportunities to learn, amount of cultural capital, and risk aversions. Purpose: The study identifies factors related to LSES students’ odds of declaring and graduating with a STEM degree and tests whether those factors work in similar ways for students from higher socioeconomic groups. The study contributes to understanding the roots of the underrepresentation of LSES students in STEM majors and occupations. Research Design: We use a mixed-method sequential explanatory design that draws from two complementary sources of data, one quantitative and one qualitative. Using multilevel logit models, the quantitative data set explores how SES influences students’ choices regarding whether to pursue a STEM degree. The qualitative data set further explores the relationships found in the quantitative data specifically for the case of LSES students through analysis of in-depth interviews. Findings: Quantitative analysis finds that LSES students’ socioeconomic background is related to their reduced opportunities to learn and reduced information resources, lessening their adequate academic preparation for success in STEM majors. Qualitative data indicate that risk avoidance—specifically, perceptions of risk and ideas of future income stability—play an important role in LSES students’ decisions to major in STEM. In addition, LSES students possess insufficient data to make informed decisions while in high school regarding course selection that would better enable their pathways into STEM, and to navigate into college success. Conclusions: To foster equity in access to postsecondary educational resources, it is crucial to offer all students access to high-quality academic opportunities before enrolling in college. Furthermore, high schools must ensure that students have access to explicit information about college and what various majors entail. We advocate that all students should have information on all options available so they can make well-informed decisions that match their abilities and preferences. Students’ access to and preferences for certain majors should not be conditioned on their socioeconomic background.