Gender gaps in grades versus grade penalties: why grade anomalies may be more detrimental for women aspiring for careers in biological sciences

Abstract

Background In the US, bioscience programs now often have more women than men who earn degrees at all levels. Despite this, evidence still exists for gender inequity in bioscience and medical fields. For example, women with careers in these fields tend to get paid less and leave these fields more. Here, we present research investigating grade penalties. Grade penalties describe the difference between a students’ grade point average and grade in a particular course when a students’ grade in a class is lower than their grade point average (GPA). For example, a student has a grade penalty of 1 in a course if their GPA is 3.0 (B) and they receive a 2.0 (C) in the course. We hypothesize that grade penalties in these STEM courses can affect students’ STEM-related self-concept negatively with potentially long-term consequences, e.g., in students’ career choices. We investigated grade penalties in science courses for undergraduate students studying biosciences. We propose a framework that posits that students who receive grade penalties in a course may view themselves as less capable in that domain and that gender differences in grade penalties may be a useful measure of gender inequity in the classroom. Results In this study, we examined grade penalties of 2445 students majoring in biological science or closely related fields across many commonly taken courses, many of which were mandatory. We find that on average, students received grade penalties in the 12 most commonly taken science courses for biosciences students at our institution. We also find that women had more extreme grade penalties than men in seven of the 12 science classes we investigated. Conclusions The pattern of grade penalties found in this study across a range of courses may result in long-term consequences for students’ STEM self-concept. Furthermore, women’s decisions to pursue STEM careers may be affected more by the grade penalty received in required science courses than men’s at least partly, because their grade penalties are often larger. Finally, the grade penalty measure can be easily computed by institutions concerned with equity.

A case for co-construction with teachers in curricular reform: Introducing computer science in primary school

“…Therefore, in order to align with the current practice in the STEM education community which often employ the term gender and gender biases when actually gathering and analysing binary or biological sex data (e.g. Jensen et al, 2023;Malespina and Singh, 2023;Sung et al, 2023), we maintain the term gender, gender-biases and gendergaps when referring to our data and our analyses. 3.2 Results -The impact of teaching CS on student learning 3.2.1 Student learning and the influence of gender and when the test was taken (study 1a)…”

Systemic advantage has a meaningful relationship with grade outcomes in students’ early STEM courses at six research universities

“…Despite national reform efforts dedicated to increasing diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), these fields continue to witness a disproportionate loss of marginalized students (Seymour & Hunter, 2019 ). STEM education researchers have repeatedly identified unequal outcomes in traditional academic achievement measures across student groups by gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic measures (Dika & D’Amico, 2016 ; Eddy & Brownell, 2016 ; Koester et al, 2016 ; Malespina & Singh, 2023 ; Matz et al, 2017 ; Mead et al, 2020 ; Whitcomb et al, 2021 ; Xie et al, 2015 ). Historically, STEM learning environments have been spaces in which systemic inequities (e.g., racism, sexism, and classism) create advantages, for example, for those who are white, wealthy, male, and continuing-generation, leading to a lack of diverse representation in STEM fields across degree programs, levels of education, and careers (Gin et al, 2022 ; McGee, 2020 ; National Center for Science & Engineering Statistics, 2021 ; Reinholz & Ridgway, 2021 ).…”

“…Introductory STEM courses are key barriers for minoritized students (Seymour & Hunter, 2019 ), notable for consistently yielding grade performance differences across student populations, with women and underrepresented and racially minoritized, low-income, and first-generation students generally receiving lower grades than white, wealthy, continuing-generation men, even after accounting for students’ pre-college and family background characteristics (Dika & D’Amico, 2016 ; Koester et al, 2016 ; Malespina & Singh, 2023 ; Matz et al, 2017 ; Whitcomb et al, 2021 ; Wright et al, 2016 ; Xie et al, 2015 ). Inequalities at these initial stages in STEM majors hinder diversity in the STEM workforce, as lower academic performance in these courses has been shown to significantly increase the probability of students leaving STEM degree programs (King, 2015 ; Witteveen & Attewell, 2020 ).…”