Research and popular debate on female underrepresentation in academia has focused on STEM fields. But recent work has offered a unifying explanation for gender representation across the STEM/non-STEM divide. This proposed explanation, called the field-specific ability beliefs (FAB) hypothesis, postulates that, in combination with pervasive stereotypes that link men but not women with intellectual talent, academics perpetuate female underrepresentation by transmitting to students in earlier stages of education their beliefs about how much intellectual talent is required for success in each academic field. This theory was supported by a nationwide survey of U.S. academics that showed both STEM and non-STEM fields with fewer women are also the fields that academics believe require more brilliance. We test this top-down schema with a nationwide survey of U.S. undergraduates, assessing the extent to which undergraduate beliefs about talent in academia mirror those of academics. We find no evidence that academics transmit their beliefs to undergraduates. We also use a second survey “identical to the first but with each field's gender ratio provided as added information” to explicitly test the relationship between undergraduate beliefs about gender and talent in academia. The results for this second survey suggest that the extent to which undergraduates rate brilliance as essential to success in an academic field is highly sensitive to this added information for non-STEM fields, but not STEM fields. Overall, our study offers evidence that, contrary to FAB hypothesis, the STEM/non-STEM divide principally shapes undergraduate beliefs about both gender and talent in academia.

Decades of initiatives have striven to fix the so-called “leaking pipeline” problem—persistent high attrition of women from the career/educational path toward STEM professorship. Though these initiatives call on academics to increase female retention along this path, it remains unknown whether academics actually prioritize this goal. To investigate this, we tested whether academics would prioritize female retention at the cost of a competing goal when giving career advice to students at risk of leaving the “pipeline.” We present results from a national survey in which United States professors (n = 364) responded to vignettes of three hypothetical undergraduates, rating the extent to which they would encourage or discourage each student from pursuing a PhD in physics. Professors were randomly assigned vignettes with either male or female gender pronouns. Two vignettes featured students who cogently explained why remaining in the physics pipeline would not match their individual goals and interests, while another vignette presented a student with goals and interests that clearly matched pursuing physics graduate school. Professors who received female-gendered vignettes were thus forced to choose between prioritizing striving to increase female retention in physics and acting in the best interest of the individual student. We present evidence that professors seem prepared to encourage women more strongly than men to remain in physics, even when remaining is contrary to the stated goals and interests of the student: Our logistic regression results suggest that professors have higher odds of encouraging women over men, net of vignette and other controls. We also find that male professors have higher odds of encouraging undergraduates and find no evidence that, relative to non-STEM professors, STEM professors have higher odds of encouraging women over men.