The importance of spatial ability in educational pursuits and the world of work was examined, with particular attention devoted to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) domains. Participants were drawn from a stratified random sample of U.S. high schools (Grades 9 -12, N ϭ 400,000) and were tracked for 11ϩ years; their longitudinal findings were aligned with pre-1957 findings and with contemporary data from the Graduate Record Examination and the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. For decades, spatial ability assessed during adolescence has surfaced as a salient psychological attribute among those adolescents who subsequently go on to achieve advanced educational credentials and occupations in STEM. Results solidify the generalization that spatial ability plays a critical role in developing expertise in STEM and suggest, among other things, that including spatial ability in modern talent searches would identify many adolescents with potential for STEM who are currently being missed.

Two studies examined the relationship between precollegiate advanced/enriched educational experiences and adult accomplishments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In Study 1, 1,467 13-year-olds were identified as mathematically talented on the basis of scores Ն 500 (top 0.5%) on the math section of the Scholastic Assessment Test; subsequently, their developmental trajectories were studied over 25 years. Particular attention was paid to high-level STEM accomplishments with low base rates in the general population (STEM PhDs, STEM publications, STEM tenure, STEM patents, and STEM occupations). Study 2 retrospectively profiled the adolescent advanced/enriched educational experiences of 714 top STEM graduate students (mean age ϭ 25), and related these experiences to their STEM accomplishments up to age 35. In both longitudinal studies, those with notable STEM accomplishments manifested past histories involving a richer density of advanced precollegiate educational opportunities in STEM (a higher "STEM dose") than less highly achieving members of their respective cohorts. While both studies are quasi-experimental, they suggest that for mathematically talented and academically motivated young adolescents, STEM accomplishments are facilitated by a rich mix of precollegiate STEM educational opportunities that are designed to be intellectually challenging, even for students at precocious developmental levels. These opportunities appear to be uniformly important for both sexes.

No abstract

This study tracks intellectually precocious youths (top 1%) over 20 years. Phase 1 (N ϭ 1,243 boys, 732 girls) examines the significance of age 13 ability differences within the top 1% for predicting doctorates, income, patents, and tenure at U.S. universities ranked within the top 50. Phase 2 (N ϭ 323 men, 188 women) evaluates the robustness of discriminant functions developed earlier, based on age-13 ability and preference assessments and calibrated with age-23 educational criteria but extended here to predict occupational group membership at age 33. Positive findings on above-level assessment with the Scholastic Aptitude Test and conventional preference inventories in educational settings generalize to occupational settings. Precocious manifestations of abilities foreshadow the emergence of exceptional achievement and creativity in the world of work; when paired with preferences, they also predict the qualitative nature of these accomplishments.

For decades, research and public discourse about gender and science have often assumed that women are more likely than men to “leak” from the science pipeline at multiple points after entering college. We used retrospective longitudinal methods to investigate how accurately this “leaky pipeline” metaphor has described the bachelor’s to Ph.D. transition in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in the U.S. since the 1970s. Among STEM bachelor’s degree earners in the 1970s and 1980s, women were less likely than men to later earn a STEM Ph.D. However, this gender difference closed in the 1990s. Qualitatively similar trends were found across STEM disciplines. The leaky pipeline metaphor therefore partially explains historical gender differences in the U.S., but no longer describes current gender differences in the bachelor’s to Ph.D. transition in STEM. The results help constrain theories about women’s underrepresentation in STEM. Overall, these results point to the need to understand gender differences at the bachelor’s level and below to understand women’s representation in STEM at the Ph.D. level and above. Consistent with trends at the bachelor’s level, women’s representation at the Ph.D. level has been recently declining for the first time in over 40 years.