08832323.2014.980715
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Glass Door Remains Closed: Another Look
at Gender Inequality in Undergraduate Business
Schools
Laura Marini Davis & Victoria Geyfman
To cite this article: Laura Marini Davis & Victoria Geyfman (2015) The Glass Door Remains
Closed: Another Look at Gender Inequality in Undergraduate Business Schools, Journal of
Education for Business, 90:2, 81-88, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.980715
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.980715
Published online: 12 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 162
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:08
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 81–88, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.980715
The Glass Door Remains Closed: Another Look
at Gender Inequality in Undergraduate Business
Schools
Laura Marini Davis and Victoria Geyfman
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, USA
The authors investigated women’s underrepresentation in undergraduate business schools by
analyzing a broad sample of Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB)–accredited U.S. business programs between 2003 and 2011. They found that
while there was an increase in the number of male students enrolled in the AACSBaccredited colleges, women’s representation declined from 44.7% in 2003 to 41.1% in 2011.
By using a variety of variables that describe school access, educational environment, and
women’s experience, the authors found that (a) economic incentives play a role in female
students’ decision to enroll; (b) female student representation is lower at larger institutions;
and (c) women-friendly institutional factors have a positive effect on women’s
representation at undergraduate business schools. The authors examine the implications of
the decline of women’s enrollment on business schools, industry, and the economy, and
make recommendations on how to address this trend.
Keywords: female enrollment, gender gap in business programs, women in business
The Kanizsa Triangle1 is an optical illusion in which a triangle is perceived even though it is not actually there. Psychologists use this illusion to describe a cognitive process
where individuals tend to ignore gaps and perceive the contour lines to make the image appear as a cohesive whole
(Bridger, 2010). It may be that the overall increase in women’s enrollment in colleges gives the illusion that undergraduate business schools (UBS) are enrolling more
women, as well. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the last two decades there has been an
observed increase in enrollment of a traditional college-age
population (18–24-year-olds) from 32% in 1990 to 41.2%
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2012).
Male enrollment within this age group increased from
32.3% to 38.3% (NCES, 2012). During the same time, the
growth of women’s enrollment within this age category
was much more pronounced, from 31.8% in 1990 to 44.1%
in 2010 (NCES, 2012). In terms of gender representation,
women accounted for 57% of enrolled college students in
Correspondence should be addressed to Victoria Geyfman, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Department of Finance, 400 E. Second
Street, Bloomsburg, PA 17815, USA. E-mail: vgeyfman@bloomu.edu
2010 compared to 54% in 1990 and 51% in 1980 (NCES,
2012). However, as we celebrate the gains of women’s
representation in higher education, the phenomenon of the
shrinking enrollment of female students in UBS has gone
largely unnoticed.
While researchers have long studied the determining
factors, economic consequences of and gender differences
in choice of majors, there is scant scholarship addressing
gender enrollment trends in UBS. In 2012, we reported on
trends in women’s enrollment and faculty representation at
their own UBS at a public university between 1995 and
2008 (Davis & Geyfman, 2012). The study found that while
the total women’s enrollment at their university was trending up, the enrollment of female students in the business
program declined. Furthermore, the decline in women’s
representation (measured by a percentage of female students to total enrollment) at their UBS mirrored the trend at
other sampled public universities in the state (Davis &
Geyfman, 2012). These findings were surprising in light of
the reported increase in women’s representation among college students in the United States. The current study takes a
broader and updated look at women’s representation in
UBS by examining U.S. schools accredited by the
82
L M. DAVIS AND V. GEYFMAN
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB)2 to see if the state trends extend nationally, and
are present in more recent periods—through 2011.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
LITERATURE REVIEW AND IMPLICATIONS OF
WOMEN’S GENDER GAP IN BUSINESS
Researchers have conducted numerous studies in the last
three decades on the factors that influence a student’s
choice of major. In 1982, Cebula and Lopes found that the
most important factor for students of various disciplines at
a large public Midwestern university was future earnings.
Later work confirmed these findings (Montmarquette, Cannings, & Mahseredjian, 2002). Other studies have focused
on gender gaps in undergraduate majors and found that a
panoply of forces influence choice of study, including differences in preferences, labor market expectations, and academic preparation (Turner & Bowen, 1999). Researchers
have also looked at socioeconomic status as a factor influencing major choice and found that students with lower
family incomes choose more lucrative fields (Davies &
Guppy, 1997), but that family income has different influences on men and women (Leppel, Williams, & Waldauer,
2001).
Additional research has studied the factors that influence
how business students choose their concentration and found
that, regardless of gender, they were most strongly influenced by their interest in the subject (Mauldin, Crain, &
Mounce, 2000; Pritchard, Potter, & Saccucci, 2004). The
second most important factor for women was their aptitude
in the subject, while men next considered career opportunities and income potential (Malgwi, Howe, & Burnaby,
2005).
Our approach in this article is motivated by previous
research but is unique in some ways. First, rather than
focusing on the individual factors that influence a student’s
choice of major (e.g., business vs. humanities and arts), we
look at the business major itself and examine the decline in
the number of women choosing to enter UBS. Second, we
discuss the implications of this trend on schools themselves,
the industry, and the nation. Finally, we explore the hypotheses that may begin to explain the trend and thus allow UBS
administration to understand what factors may help attract
female students, what measures may be implemented in
order to improve women’s experience and help reverse the
decline in women’s representation in UBS.
Implications
Although few studies have examined gender trends in UBS,
the implications of the decline in women’s representation
are potentially significant. Ball (2012) reported that business enrollments are becoming a smaller proportion of all
college degrees, and that a substantial reason for this
decline is that women are less likely to choose business as a
major. The study also noted that women are driving the
overall college enrollments trends. These factors combined
predict a dim, if not dire, future for the growth of UBS. A
more immediate concern for UBS is the lack of female students in the classrooms. Not only are male-dominated classrooms deprived of the perspectives that women bring to the
discussion, the women in attendance may be subject to a
chilly climate (Hall & Sandler, 1982, 1984). The term
refers to a cluster of kinds of systematic discrimination that
disadvantage women in an academic environment. Examples of such behavior can include sexist use of language,
presentation of stereotypic views of women, and instructors
favoring male students (Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones,
& Piccinin 2003). Such behavior may dissuade women
from pursuing business classes, and perpetuate the problem
of sexism that has long plagued the corporate world.
We can assume that UBS would want to understand and
address gender trends for their own reasons—commitments
to equity and compliance with their own vision and missions, which often reflect aspirations to be inclusive and
diverse. However, external pressures to address the issue
also exist. A threshold criterion for accreditation by the
AASCB is evidence of compliance with the AACSB’s
guiding principles. Included in these principles is that
“Diversity in people and ideas enhances the educational
experience in every management education program,” and
that “diversity is a. . .concept rooted in. . .ethnicity, gender
[emphasis added], socioeconomic conditions, and experiences” (AACSB, 2013a, p. 6).
Another external pressure that should encourage UBS to
monitor gender enrollment is Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based
on sex (gender) in federally assisted education programs.
Commonly known for creating opportunities for women
and girls in athletics, Title IX’s nondiscrimination protections are broad, including student recruitment, admissions,
and educational programs. Unlike equity in math, science,
and technology education, Title IX does not expressly
address equity in business education. However, courts and
regulatory agencies have emphasized the breadth of Title
IX’s antidiscrimination provisions, making it the focus of
increasingly complex compliance efforts across campuses
and across program areas.
There are also significant implication for industry. In a
competitive marketplace, attracting, retaining, and utilizing
people with the required skills and aptitude to meet business needs are primary drivers for organizational success
(SHRM Research, 2006). Consequently, the continued
trend of women, or any demographic, choosing undergraduate majors other than business deprives industry of needed
talent. In gender specific terms, the business case for
women in management contends that companies that
achieve diversity and manage it well attain better financial
results, on average, than other companies (Catalyst, 2013).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
GENDER INEQUALITY IN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOLS
In addition, companies with the most women board directors outperformed those with the least on returns to shareholders (Catalyst, 2007).3
On a national level, recent legislation mandates that governmental agencies who oversee the financial sector monitor the hiring of women (and members of minority groups)
by the entities they regulate. Based on the belief that greater
diversity promotes stronger, more effective, and more innovative business, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the Act; 2010) called for the
establishment of an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (Office) in numerous federal agencies. The Act
requires each Office within its respective agencies to
develop standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of
women and minorities, in all business and activities of the
agency. A diminished pipeline of women to fill positions in
the financial sector will thwart this legislative goal.
On a macroeconomic level, women’s choice of major
will have a profound effect on the financial health of families. Research demonstrates how sex differences in choice
of major are a key factor in perpetuating the persistent gender wage gap (for an extensive literature review, see Ma,
2009). Because business-related occupations tend to command a higher compensation, a woman’s decision not to
pursue careers in the field may reduce the financial resources available to a large swath of the economy. In a recent
study by the Pew Research Center (2013) it was reported
that a record 40% of all households with children under
18 years old are headed by mothers who are either the sole
or primary source of income for the family.
TRENDS OF WOMEN’S ENROLLMENT AT UBS:
AACSB DATA
Here we used an extensive database from AACSB based on
the Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) collected on an
annual basis (AACSB, 2013b). Although by focusing on
AACSB data we are not capturing the trends at nonaccredited business programs, the AACSB’s high standards and
attention to aligning programs’ mission and strategies
should reflect best business practices, including those pertaining to gender representation.
Using the AACSB Datadirect (AACSB, 2013b), we created a database that included all AACSB-accredited members in the United States and their information for
undergraduate enrollment, faculty participation, school
admission, and non-confidential financial characteristics.4
Table 1 presents summary data for the enrollment and
degree attainment variables between the 2003–2004 and
2011–2012 academic years. The AACSB BSQ reports provide information dating back to 2001; however, some pertinent variables to this study were not collected until 2003.
For growth rate comparisons, we examined the entire
83
sample from 2003 through 2011 and compared it to a subsample between 2007 and 2011 to account for possible
effects of the recent financial crisis on business school
enrollment.
According to Table 1, the total enrollment at AACSBaccredited institutions in the United States increased from
707,890 to 764,084, or almost 8%, during the entire sample
period, notwithstanding a 3% decline in enrollment
between 2007 and 2011, which may be the effect of the
global economic crisis. The number of male students
enrolled increased by roughly 15% between 2003 and
2011, but the number of female students fell slightly, by
0.55%. The decline was more pronounced in the later part
of the sample period. Female student representation in UBS
(measured by the percentage of female students enrolled in
business programs) is the variable of interest in this study.
Table 1 shows that women’s representation at AACSBaccredited member institutions in the United States
declined from 44.7% in 2003 to 41.1% in 2011.
In addition to enrollment, we also use degree attainment
to examine education trends. Our AACSB data on degree
attainment show that while the total number of bachelor’s
business degrees awarded rose by almost 9% during the
2003–2011 period and the number of degrees earned by
male students rose by 16%, the number of degrees awarded
to female students remained virtually unchanged during the
entire sample period, rising a mere 0.21% (Table 1). Furthermore, female student representation among college of
business graduates declined from 46.5% in 2003 to 42.8%
in 2011.5 This is consistent with results found in Ball
(2012) that show that although some business subdisciplines are becoming more women dominated, the size of
these subdisciplines as a percentage of all business programs is decreasing; thus, the total women’s representation
is falling. In sum, women’s representation in UBS measured by either enrollment or degrees awarded has declined
in the last decade—remarkable findings in light of a nationally reported reversal in gender gap.
ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND RESULTS
The empirical analysis of a choice of business programs for
female students using AACSB dataset is similar to that
undertaken by studies that test general college choice models, which typically include variables of educational
achievement, socioeconomic background characteristics,
financial variables, and institutional characteristics (Hanson
& Litten, 1982; Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; St. John &
Starkey, 1995). Here we do not attempt to predict the
choice of major (the AACSB dataset contains information
on business programs only). Rather, we extend the literature by investigating the relationship between female student representation in UBS programs and factors that can
potentially influence the enrollment of female students.
84
L M. DAVIS AND V. GEYFMAN
TABLE 1
Enrollment and Degrees Conferred
Growth rates (% change)
All schools
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Number of schools
Total enrollment
Male students
Female students
% Female students
Degrees conferred
Male students
Female students
% Female degrees
2003
2007
2011
Full sample period
2003–2011
Post financial crisis
2007–2011
410
707,890
391,821
316,069
44.65
165,386
88,486
76,900
46.50
445
787,797
450,093
337,704
42.87
159,408
88,899
70,509
44.23
467
764,084
449,760
314,324
41.14
179,865
102,807
77,058
42.84
13.90
7.94
14.79
¡0.55
#
8.75
16.18
0.21
#
4.94
¡3.01
¡0.07
¡6.92
#
12.83
15.64
9.29
#
Note: Bold text indicates the variable of interest—percent of female enrollment. Source: AACSB Business School Questionnaire (AACSB, 2013b) for
Undergraduate Enrollment and faculty and staff.
Table 2 provides a list of AACSB variables and their short
description.
In addition to three categorical variables—public, state,
and region—there were a total of 24 variables in the dataset. We performed two factoring procedures (orthogonal
and oblique rotations) in Stata (ver. 12.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX) to extract a set of factors from the larger
set of variables. The results of factor analysis produced
four factors based on eigenvalue criteria, Scree plots, and
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures, indicating that
these factors were appropriate, statistically significant, and
explained a cumulative 87% of the variance. In addition to
the factor of women’s representation, the three other factors
were identified as access, educational environment, and
educational experience. Further analysis using the multivariable analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedure revealed
that these factors were statistically different from each
other; they were also statistically reliable according to the
Cronbach’s alpha measure. These procedures proved the
validity of our groups of variables; however, given the richness of the dataset, we proceeded to analyze the impact of
factors and its components on our main variable of interest.
We tested the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Access: Favorable (perceived or actual)
access factors should incentivize female students to
attend certain schools.
The variables included in this factor were tuition and fees,
SAT scores, student acceptance rate, and the percentage of
transfer students. College tuition is a significant investment
and research shows that students’ ability to pay plays an
important role in their decisions about college (St. John &
Starkley, 1995). Not surprisingly, research findings show
that there is a strong inverse relationship between tuition
increases and enrollment. Thus, we expected economic
incentives of lower tuition and fees to be positively related
to female student representation. Turner and Bowen (1999)
used SAT scores to examine the extent to which gender differences in precollegiate preparation affected the choice of
fields of study within arts, sciences, and engineering and
found that SAT scores accounted for only a part of the
observed gap, the main impact was driven by other factors.
We also tested economic and statistical significance of the
relationship between female student representation and
schools’ acceptance rates and the percentage of transfer students.
H2: Environment: Advantageous (perceived or actual)
educational environment variables should have a
positive effect on the female students’ choice of
schools.
These variables represented the size of an institution
(reported as total and by gender measures) and included the
number of students enrolled, the number of faculty, and
the number of degrees awarded. The dataset also included
the variable for the market value of university endowment.
Since we did not have a priori assumptions regarding the
relationship between women’s representation and the
institution’s size (do women prefer broad opportunities of a
large university or the personal atmosphere of a smaller
university?), it seemed worthwhile to determine whether
various measures of institution size had an impact on women’s choice of schools.
While hypotheses H1 and H2 can be used to test the
effect of traditional set of factors on student enrollment
(male or female), H3 examined the effect of variables that
may be relevant to female students’ experience only.
H3: Experience: UBS female student representation should
be positively influenced by favorable (actual or perceived) school characteristics that enhance female student experience.
GENDER INEQUALITY IN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOLS
85
TABLE 2
Variable Definitions for AACSB U.S. Accredited Member Schools
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Variable
Label
PUBLIC
STATE
REGION
Public
State
Region
ENRL_MALE
ENRL_FEM
DEGREES_MALE
DEGREES_FEM
FACULTY_AQ
FACULTY_PQ
ENDOWMENT
TUITIONFEES_INSTATE
TUITIONFEES_OUTSTATE
ADM_N APPL
ADM_N ADMITTED
ADM_N ENTRANTS
ADM_SAT
AVG_CLASSSZ
STUD_FACULTYRATIO
PARTICIPFACLTY_MALE
PARTICFACLTY_FEM
AACSBFACULTY_TOTAL
PRCT_TRANSFER
ENRL_TOT
PRCENRL_FEM
Enrl-BA-L and U Div-total male
Enrl-BA-L and U Div-total female
Degrees-bachelor of arts-men
Degrees-bachelor of arts-women
Faculty: academically qualified-total
Faculty: professionally qualified-total
Endowment market value-total
Tuition & fees-undergrad: in state
Tuition & fees-undergrad: out of state
Adm: UG-total-N applicants
Adm: UG-total-N admitted
Adm: UG-total-N entrants
Adm: UG-Avg SAT score
Mean class size-undergraduate
Ratio of students to faculty-undergraduate
Faculty: participating, all-men
Faculty: participating, all-women
Faculty: total
Prct_transfer
Total enrollment
Prct_female enrolled
DEGREES_TOT
PRCDEGREES_FEM
Degrees_total
Prct degrees- bachelor of arts-women
PRCFCLTY_Fem
ADM_RATE
Prct Faculty_Female
Admission_Rate
Definition
A dummy variable; public D 1 if public university, public D 0 otherwise.
U.S. state
U.S. region; we separated our dataset into Midwest, Northeast, Pacific,
South, and West
Undergraduate business school male student enrollment
UBS female student enrollment
Business degrees awarded to male students
Business degrees awarded to female students
Total number of academically qualified faculty
Total number of professionally qualified faculty
Market value of university endowment
Tuition and fees for the in-state student
Tuition and fees for the out-of-state student
Total number of applications
Total number of students admitted
Total number of entrants
Average SAT score reported by school
An average undergraduate business school class size
Student-faculty ratio
Total number of male faculty
Total number of female faculty
Total number of faculty
The percentage of transfer students
Total enrollment D ENRL_MALECENRL_FEM (authors’ calculations)
Female business students as a percentage of total UBS enrollment
D (ENRL_FEM/ENRL_TOT)*100%
Total degrees conferred D DEGREES_MALE C DEGREES_FEM
Percent of degrees awarded to female students
D (DEGREES_FEM/DEGREES_TOT)*100%
Female faculty representation in UBS
Percent of students admitted to a program
D (ADM_N ADMITTED/ADM_N APPL)*100%
Source: AACSB Salary Survey, Business School Questionnaire: Enrollment-Undergraduate, faculty and saff, and custom data calculations performed by
the authors (AACSB, 2013b).
These factors included enrollment (total and by gender),
degrees awarded, average class size, student–faculty ratio,
and female faculty representation. Obviously, H3 overlaps
somewhat with the other hypotheses, but we focused our
attention here on female students’ experience. Krupnick
(1985) reported on differences in communication styles of
male and female students and the resultant effect on teaching and learning at Harvard College. Classroom discussions
and active class participation are considered an integral
part of education, but according to the study female students tended to be underparticipating. The report showed
that male students tended to dominate discussions, and
women were more vulnerable to interruptions and generally
uncomfortable or unwilling to compete against men. Thus,
in this study we hypothesized that women may be drawn to
programs where they know there are other female students,
so the number of female students was included in the set of
experience factors. We included a student-faculty ratio,
because female students may prefer a more personal and
supportive learning experience. Previous studies found that
that the presence of female instructors had a positive effect
on female students’ participation in classroom discussions
(Crombie et al., 2003; Krupnick, 1985). Krupnick found
that women spoke almost three times longer under instructors of their own sex than when they were in classes led by
male instructors. Similarly, because female students may
be attracted to schools with more same-sex role models, we
included a variable for the percentage of female faculty at
AACSB-accredited institutions. Empirical evidence suggests that there is a positive effect of role models in underrepresented groups, such as women and minority students
(Rask & Bailey, 2002). Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for variables in the total sample, and for public and private institutions.6 This study used a t test with a .05 level of
significance to compare differences of the means of a paired
sample and independent samples. We found that public
institutions were generally larger, had a higher average
class size and student-faculty ratio compared to private
institutions. Public universities also reported a higher average number of female students enrolled. Although the
86
L M. DAVIS AND V. GEYFMAN
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics by Type of Institution
Total
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Variable
ENRL_MALE
ENRL_FEM
DEGREES_MALE
DEGREES_FEM
FACULTY_AQ
FACULTY_PQ
ENDOWMENT ($mil.)
TUITIONFEES_IN STATE ($thou.)
TUITIONFEE_OUTSTATE($thou.)
ADM_N APPL
ADM_N ADMIT
ADM_N ENTRANT
ADM_SAT
AVG_CLASSSZ
STUD_FACLT_RAT
FACLTY_MALE
FACLTY_FEM
FACLTY_GENDER
AACSBFACULTY
PRCT_TRANSFER
ENRL_TOT
PRCENRL_FEM
DEGREES_TOT
PRCDEGREE_FEM
PRCFCLTY_Fem
ADM_RATE
Public
Private
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
p
3,978
3,973
3,688
3,683
3,778
3,887
4,168
4,182
4,128
3,307
3,313
3,536
2,872
4,054
4,052
4,058
4,056
4,056
4,052
2,587
3,970
3,953
3,682
3,668
4,056
3,248
977.5
737.5
225.2
179.9
51.6
23.9
$23.5
$12.3
$18.4
1809.0
1047.0
515.0
1067.0
40.6
20.8
42.7
15.7
58.4
79.9
23.3
1715.6
43.1
405.2
44.9
27.7
67.7
840.4
702.2
193.3
157.4
34.9
22.2
$59.8
$11.5
$8.2
2000.8
979.3
467.4
260.1
95.0
10.9
29.1
10.7
38. 6
52.9
20.8
1510.2
8.3
342.4
9.2
8.6
22.3
1,513
1,512
1,429
1,429
1,422
1,478
1,574
1,597
1,597
1,223
1,232
1,317
1,022
1,562
1,555
1,551
1,551
1,549
1,555
977
1,512
1,510
1,429
1,424
1,549
1,203
809.1
630.9
177.1
149.2
41.6
18.3
$11.8
$6.3
$14.8
1471.0
872. 9
434.1
1021.4
40.3
22.8
34.2
13.1
47.4
63.6
27.7
1440.5
44.1
326.2
46.3
28.4
68. 7
629.2
496.4
153.9
129.4
28.2
17.2
$38.9
$3.3
$5.9
1730.2
925.4
361.1
242. 8
115.7
10.3
22.5
8.6
29. 8
41.9
22.7
1097.6
8.9
277.1
9.8
8.6
21.5
757
753
693
688
761
778
842
783
756
629
628
672
656
760
811
822
822
822
811
501
751
740
687
679
822
613
496.6
342.1
122.9
90.7
40.9
19.0
$41.9
$26.5
$26.4
1625.3
811.3
251.5
1122.3
27.2
12.7
32.4
11.8
44.2
62.6
12.6
836.0
41.3
213.1
43.0
27.6
61.0
363.5
255.7
86.1
65.8
28. 9
21.6
$104.6
$7.6
$8.1
1614.8
658.5
178.8
265.6
12.3
7.7
22.8
7.8
29.5
42.9
11.6
607.7
9.2
148.6
10.1
10.3
19.5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
y
**
**
**
**
y
**
*
**
**
**
**
**
y
**
Note: Bold text indicates the variable of interest—percent of female enrollment. The number of observations for public and private universities do not
always add up because there were schools in the sample that did not identify themselves as either of these categories.
yp D .10, *p D .05, **p D .01.
average number of female faculty was slightly higher at
public universities compared to private universities, the
average percentage of female faculty representation was
approximately the same, around 28% of all business faculty. Combined with the fact that public universities
reported a larger student population, the latter finding suggests that there was a lower ratio of female faculty to students; thus, female faculty’s time that could be devoted to
advising or mentoring individual female students was
limited.
Table 4 presents pairwise correlations between the main
variable of interest (the female student representation) and
other factors in our dataset. According to Table 4, the percentage of female students in UBS was significantly related
to access variables, confirming H1. Specifically, there was
a negative association between female student representation and tuition and fees (–.19) and SAT score (–.16). In
addition, the percentage of female business students in a
program was positively related to the admission rate. In
terms of educational environment described in H2, Table 4
shows that there was a negative association between female
student representation and male enrollment (–.13), degrees
awarded to male students (–.17), and the size of school
endowment (–.13). Collectively, these findings indicate that
female students did not seem to care for larger institutions,
although as we observed in Table 3, there were more
female students on campuses of public universities, which
were on average larger than private universities.
Finally, the group of variables identified as womenfriendly measures shows that there was a significant positive association between female student representation and
the percentage of degrees awarded to female students,
which confirms H3. The average class size and the student–
faculty ratios were inversely related to female student
representation, but these were statistically significant at private institutions only, implying that female students at private institutions tended to vote with their feet (i.e., they
were more sensitive and perhaps more insistent on lower
student–faculty ratio and smaller class sizes at institutions
for which they paid premium to attend).
The percentage of female business students was
also positively associated with the percentage of
female faculty at UBS (.18), indicating that female
students were potentially influenced by the presence of
female faculty in the classroom. This relationship was
much stronger at private schools (where the
GENDER INEQUALITY IN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOLS
TABLE 4
Pairwise Correlations: Percent of Female Students in UBS,
2003–2011
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Variable
H1 variables: Access
TUITIONFEES_INSTATE
TUITIONFEES_OUTSTATE
ADM_SAT
ADM_RATE
ADM_N APPL
ADM_N ADMITTED
ADM_N ENTRANTS
PRCT_TRANSFER
H2 variables: Environment
ENRL_MALE
DEGREES_MALE
ENRL_TOT
DEGREES_TOT
ENDOWMENT
PARTICIPFACLTY_MALE
PARTICFACLTY_FEM
FACULTY_GENDERTOT
AACSBFACULTY_TOTAL
H3 variables: Experience
ENRL_FEM
DEGREES_FEM
PRCDEGREES_FEM
PRCFCLTY_Fem
AVG_CLASSSZ
STUD_FACULTYRATIO
Total
p
Public
p
Private
p
¡.188
¡.256
¡.161
.040
.014
.002
.027
.312
**
**
**
**
¡.343
¡.302
¡.191
.027
.014
.011
.031
.356
**
**
**
¡.128
¡.134
¡.065
¡.159
¡.050
¡.050
.018
.163
**
**
y
**
¡.132
¡.174
¡.014
¡.066
¡.131
¡.094
¡.029
¡.079
¡.039
.128
.071
.826
.177
¡.001
.018
y
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
**
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
¡.178
¡.166
¡.041
¡.050
¡.092
¡.092
¡.047
¡.082
¡.035
**
**
**
y
**
**
y
**
¡.156
¡.148
¡.045
¡.058
¡.003
¡.062
.020
¡.040
¡.029
**
**
**
.136
.091
.838
.109
.043
.027
**
**
**
**
y
.112
.049
.772
.336
¡.118
¡.104
**
y
**
*
**
**
Note: This table presents all pairwise correlation coefficients between
female student representation and other variables that describe school
access, education environment, and women-specific experience factors.
yp D .10, *p D .05, **p D .01.
correlation coefficient was .34) than at public schools
(with the coefficient of .11).
In summary, our sample of AACSB schools shows that
during the period between 2003 and 2011, the effect of
access variables was consistent with economic and socioeconomic incentives. In other words, an easier access to
institutions was associated with a greater number of female
students. The findings on the association with the metrics
of educational environment indicate that women’s representation was inversely related to the size of an institution,
where size was measured by total enrollment, degrees conferred, or the number of faculty. Last, women-friendly institutional variables of the percentage of degrees awarded to
women and the ratio of female faculty, were positively
related to female student representation, while the average
class size and student-faculty ratios were negatively related
to this variable of interest.
women’s enrollment decreased slightly and the percentage
of female students at UBS actually fell from 44.7% in 2003
to 41.1% in 2011. If it continues, this enrollment trend may
have significant impact on UBS, industry and the national
economy. In an initial attempt to understand the trend using
a variety of factors that describe school access, educational
environment, and women’s experience, we found that (a)
economic incentives and socioeconomic conditions play a
role in female students’ decision to enroll, (b) female student representation is lower at larger institutions, and (c)
women-friendly institutional factors have a positive effect
on women’s representation at UBS.
These findings are not surprising and are consistent with
previous research, but constitute only preliminary steps
past the starting line in the investigation of this topic. The
principal recommendation of this study is that more attention should be given to this enrollment trend and that additional research should be conducted on two fronts.
Continued longitudinal tracking of women’s enrollment in
UBS is needed to see if the decline continues, abates or
reverses. The annual data available from the NCES and the
AACSB can be used for this purpose. At the same time,
additional study of the factors that influence a women’s
decision to attend UBS should be undertaken. For example,
what influence do academic preparation, demographics
(rural or urban), high school counselors, and teachers have
on the decision to enter UBS?
In the meantime, university administrators and UBS must see
through any illusions they may have that the steady increase of
women undergraduates on their campuses is indicative of growth
in women’s enrollment in their business programs. They need to
recognize that during the last several years, undergraduate women
have consistently and increasingly turned away from studying
business—a trend immediately disadvantageous to them and one
with broader sociological implications. This awareness is an obvious and critical step. As we continue to learn more about the factors that influence young women to study business, it is likely that
the solution to closing the gender gap in business education will
require a multipronged strategy that addresses the issue of access
and improved campus environment for female students. This
study suggests that this can be accomplished by keeping tuition
low, class size small, and providing female students with opportunities to interact with successful female mentors and role models—all efforts that are likely to be consistent with UBS missions
and strategic plans.
NOTES
1.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study found that while the total enrollment and the
enrollment of male students at AACSB-accredited colleges
in the United States increased between 2003 and 2011,
87
Image of the Kanizsa Triangle where illusory contours create the illusion of an equilateral triangle.
2. The AACSB is a global membership association representing the largest network of business schools
focused on advancing business education.
88
L M. DAVIS AND V. GEYFMAN
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
3. Similar findings were reported by CNBC for the
hedge funds industry (MarketWatch, 2014).
4. The list of variables and their description appears in
Table 2.
5. We have been collecting data for our own UBS (an
AACSB-accredited public university with approximately 1,500 students) since 1995. Women’s representation at our school decreased from 45% in 1995
to 33% in 2012.
6. We distinguish between public and private institutions because their operational models are inherently
different and can produce results that cannot be easily
compared and explained.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).
(2013a). 2013 Business association standards. Retrieved from http://
www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/standards/2013/eligibility.asp
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).
(2013b). Business school questionnaire for undergraduate enrollment,
faculty, and staff. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/datadirect
Ball, J. A. (2012). The gender gap in undergraduate business programs in
the United States. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 260–265.
Bridger, H. (2010, December 1). Filling in the voids. Retrieved from http://
www.broadinstitute.org/blog/filling-voids
Catalyst. (2007). The bottom line: Corporate performance and women’s
representation on boards. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/
search/node/fortune%20500%20performance
Catalyst. (2013). Why diversity matters. Retrieved from http://www.
catalyst.org/knowledge/why-diversity-matters
Cebula, R. J., & Lopes, J. (1982). Determinates of student choice of undergraduate major field. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 303–312.
Crombie, G., Pyke, S. W., Silverthorn, N., Jones, A., & Piccinin, S. (2003).
Students’ perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a
function of gender and context. The Journal of Higher Education, 74, 51–76.
Davis, L. M., & Geyfman, V. (2012). Gender inequality in undergraduate
business schools: The glass door effects. NASPA Journal About Women
in Higher Education, 5, 46–70.
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly
campus climate for women? Washington, DC: Project on the Status and
Education of Women, Association of American College.
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1984). Out of the classroom: A chilly
campus climate for women? Washington, DC: Project on the Status and
Education of Women, Association of American College.
Hanson, K., & Litten, L. (1982). Mapping the road to academia: A review
of research on women, men, and the college selection process. In
N. P. Perun (Ed.), The undergraduate woman, issues in education
(pp. 73–77). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. (1987). Studying college choice: A threephase model and the implications for policy makers. College and University, 2, 207–21.
Krupnick, C. (1985). Women and men in the classroom: Inequality and its
remedies. On Teaching and Learning, 1, 18–25.
Leppel, K., Williams, M. L., & Waldauer, C. (2001). The impact of parental occupation and socioeconomic status on choice of college major.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, 373–394.
Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and
college major choices—Gender race/ethnic, and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52, 211–234.
Malgwi, C. A., Howe, M. A., & Burnaby, P. A. (2005). Influences on
students’ choice of college major. Journal of Education for Business,
80, 275–282.
MarketWatch. (2014, January 16). Once again, women hedge-fund managers beat the industry. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.
marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/01/16/once-again-women-hedge-fundmanagers-beat-the-industry
Mauldin, S., Crain, J., & Mounce, P. (2000). The accounting principles
instructor’s influence on students’ decision to major in accounting. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 142–148.
Montmarquette, C., Cannings, C., & Mahseredjian, S. (2002). How do people choose college majors? Economics of Education Review, 21,
543–556.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). The condition of
education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Statistics.
Pew Research Center. (2013, May 29). Breadwinner moms. Pew Research
Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/
breadwinner-moms/
Pritchard, R., Potter, G., & Saccucci, M. (2004). The selection of a business major: Elements influencing student choice and implications for
outcomes assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 152–157.
Rask, K. N., & Bailey, E. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence
from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic
Education, 33, 99–124.
SHRM Research. (2006). Talent managment: Driver for organizational
sucess. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Articles/
Documents/0606RQuartpdf.pdf
St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. B. (1995). An alternative to net price: Assessing the influence of prices and subsidies on within-year persistence.
Journal of Higher Education, 66, 156–86.
Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 20 U.S.C 1681–1688
(1972).
Turner, S. E., & Bowen, W. G. (1999). Choice of major: The changing
(unchanging) gender gap. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52,
289–313.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Glass Door Remains Closed: Another Look
at Gender Inequality in Undergraduate Business
Schools
Laura Marini Davis & Victoria Geyfman
To cite this article: Laura Marini Davis & Victoria Geyfman (2015) The Glass Door Remains
Closed: Another Look at Gender Inequality in Undergraduate Business Schools, Journal of
Education for Business, 90:2, 81-88, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.980715
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.980715
Published online: 12 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 162
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:08
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 81–88, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.980715
The Glass Door Remains Closed: Another Look
at Gender Inequality in Undergraduate Business
Schools
Laura Marini Davis and Victoria Geyfman
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, USA
The authors investigated women’s underrepresentation in undergraduate business schools by
analyzing a broad sample of Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB)–accredited U.S. business programs between 2003 and 2011. They found that
while there was an increase in the number of male students enrolled in the AACSBaccredited colleges, women’s representation declined from 44.7% in 2003 to 41.1% in 2011.
By using a variety of variables that describe school access, educational environment, and
women’s experience, the authors found that (a) economic incentives play a role in female
students’ decision to enroll; (b) female student representation is lower at larger institutions;
and (c) women-friendly institutional factors have a positive effect on women’s
representation at undergraduate business schools. The authors examine the implications of
the decline of women’s enrollment on business schools, industry, and the economy, and
make recommendations on how to address this trend.
Keywords: female enrollment, gender gap in business programs, women in business
The Kanizsa Triangle1 is an optical illusion in which a triangle is perceived even though it is not actually there. Psychologists use this illusion to describe a cognitive process
where individuals tend to ignore gaps and perceive the contour lines to make the image appear as a cohesive whole
(Bridger, 2010). It may be that the overall increase in women’s enrollment in colleges gives the illusion that undergraduate business schools (UBS) are enrolling more
women, as well. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the last two decades there has been an
observed increase in enrollment of a traditional college-age
population (18–24-year-olds) from 32% in 1990 to 41.2%
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2012).
Male enrollment within this age group increased from
32.3% to 38.3% (NCES, 2012). During the same time, the
growth of women’s enrollment within this age category
was much more pronounced, from 31.8% in 1990 to 44.1%
in 2010 (NCES, 2012). In terms of gender representation,
women accounted for 57% of enrolled college students in
Correspondence should be addressed to Victoria Geyfman, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Department of Finance, 400 E. Second
Street, Bloomsburg, PA 17815, USA. E-mail: vgeyfman@bloomu.edu
2010 compared to 54% in 1990 and 51% in 1980 (NCES,
2012). However, as we celebrate the gains of women’s
representation in higher education, the phenomenon of the
shrinking enrollment of female students in UBS has gone
largely unnoticed.
While researchers have long studied the determining
factors, economic consequences of and gender differences
in choice of majors, there is scant scholarship addressing
gender enrollment trends in UBS. In 2012, we reported on
trends in women’s enrollment and faculty representation at
their own UBS at a public university between 1995 and
2008 (Davis & Geyfman, 2012). The study found that while
the total women’s enrollment at their university was trending up, the enrollment of female students in the business
program declined. Furthermore, the decline in women’s
representation (measured by a percentage of female students to total enrollment) at their UBS mirrored the trend at
other sampled public universities in the state (Davis &
Geyfman, 2012). These findings were surprising in light of
the reported increase in women’s representation among college students in the United States. The current study takes a
broader and updated look at women’s representation in
UBS by examining U.S. schools accredited by the
82
L M. DAVIS AND V. GEYFMAN
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB)2 to see if the state trends extend nationally, and
are present in more recent periods—through 2011.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
LITERATURE REVIEW AND IMPLICATIONS OF
WOMEN’S GENDER GAP IN BUSINESS
Researchers have conducted numerous studies in the last
three decades on the factors that influence a student’s
choice of major. In 1982, Cebula and Lopes found that the
most important factor for students of various disciplines at
a large public Midwestern university was future earnings.
Later work confirmed these findings (Montmarquette, Cannings, & Mahseredjian, 2002). Other studies have focused
on gender gaps in undergraduate majors and found that a
panoply of forces influence choice of study, including differences in preferences, labor market expectations, and academic preparation (Turner & Bowen, 1999). Researchers
have also looked at socioeconomic status as a factor influencing major choice and found that students with lower
family incomes choose more lucrative fields (Davies &
Guppy, 1997), but that family income has different influences on men and women (Leppel, Williams, & Waldauer,
2001).
Additional research has studied the factors that influence
how business students choose their concentration and found
that, regardless of gender, they were most strongly influenced by their interest in the subject (Mauldin, Crain, &
Mounce, 2000; Pritchard, Potter, & Saccucci, 2004). The
second most important factor for women was their aptitude
in the subject, while men next considered career opportunities and income potential (Malgwi, Howe, & Burnaby,
2005).
Our approach in this article is motivated by previous
research but is unique in some ways. First, rather than
focusing on the individual factors that influence a student’s
choice of major (e.g., business vs. humanities and arts), we
look at the business major itself and examine the decline in
the number of women choosing to enter UBS. Second, we
discuss the implications of this trend on schools themselves,
the industry, and the nation. Finally, we explore the hypotheses that may begin to explain the trend and thus allow UBS
administration to understand what factors may help attract
female students, what measures may be implemented in
order to improve women’s experience and help reverse the
decline in women’s representation in UBS.
Implications
Although few studies have examined gender trends in UBS,
the implications of the decline in women’s representation
are potentially significant. Ball (2012) reported that business enrollments are becoming a smaller proportion of all
college degrees, and that a substantial reason for this
decline is that women are less likely to choose business as a
major. The study also noted that women are driving the
overall college enrollments trends. These factors combined
predict a dim, if not dire, future for the growth of UBS. A
more immediate concern for UBS is the lack of female students in the classrooms. Not only are male-dominated classrooms deprived of the perspectives that women bring to the
discussion, the women in attendance may be subject to a
chilly climate (Hall & Sandler, 1982, 1984). The term
refers to a cluster of kinds of systematic discrimination that
disadvantage women in an academic environment. Examples of such behavior can include sexist use of language,
presentation of stereotypic views of women, and instructors
favoring male students (Crombie, Pyke, Silverthorn, Jones,
& Piccinin 2003). Such behavior may dissuade women
from pursuing business classes, and perpetuate the problem
of sexism that has long plagued the corporate world.
We can assume that UBS would want to understand and
address gender trends for their own reasons—commitments
to equity and compliance with their own vision and missions, which often reflect aspirations to be inclusive and
diverse. However, external pressures to address the issue
also exist. A threshold criterion for accreditation by the
AASCB is evidence of compliance with the AACSB’s
guiding principles. Included in these principles is that
“Diversity in people and ideas enhances the educational
experience in every management education program,” and
that “diversity is a. . .concept rooted in. . .ethnicity, gender
[emphasis added], socioeconomic conditions, and experiences” (AACSB, 2013a, p. 6).
Another external pressure that should encourage UBS to
monitor gender enrollment is Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based
on sex (gender) in federally assisted education programs.
Commonly known for creating opportunities for women
and girls in athletics, Title IX’s nondiscrimination protections are broad, including student recruitment, admissions,
and educational programs. Unlike equity in math, science,
and technology education, Title IX does not expressly
address equity in business education. However, courts and
regulatory agencies have emphasized the breadth of Title
IX’s antidiscrimination provisions, making it the focus of
increasingly complex compliance efforts across campuses
and across program areas.
There are also significant implication for industry. In a
competitive marketplace, attracting, retaining, and utilizing
people with the required skills and aptitude to meet business needs are primary drivers for organizational success
(SHRM Research, 2006). Consequently, the continued
trend of women, or any demographic, choosing undergraduate majors other than business deprives industry of needed
talent. In gender specific terms, the business case for
women in management contends that companies that
achieve diversity and manage it well attain better financial
results, on average, than other companies (Catalyst, 2013).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
GENDER INEQUALITY IN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOLS
In addition, companies with the most women board directors outperformed those with the least on returns to shareholders (Catalyst, 2007).3
On a national level, recent legislation mandates that governmental agencies who oversee the financial sector monitor the hiring of women (and members of minority groups)
by the entities they regulate. Based on the belief that greater
diversity promotes stronger, more effective, and more innovative business, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the Act; 2010) called for the
establishment of an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (Office) in numerous federal agencies. The Act
requires each Office within its respective agencies to
develop standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of
women and minorities, in all business and activities of the
agency. A diminished pipeline of women to fill positions in
the financial sector will thwart this legislative goal.
On a macroeconomic level, women’s choice of major
will have a profound effect on the financial health of families. Research demonstrates how sex differences in choice
of major are a key factor in perpetuating the persistent gender wage gap (for an extensive literature review, see Ma,
2009). Because business-related occupations tend to command a higher compensation, a woman’s decision not to
pursue careers in the field may reduce the financial resources available to a large swath of the economy. In a recent
study by the Pew Research Center (2013) it was reported
that a record 40% of all households with children under
18 years old are headed by mothers who are either the sole
or primary source of income for the family.
TRENDS OF WOMEN’S ENROLLMENT AT UBS:
AACSB DATA
Here we used an extensive database from AACSB based on
the Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) collected on an
annual basis (AACSB, 2013b). Although by focusing on
AACSB data we are not capturing the trends at nonaccredited business programs, the AACSB’s high standards and
attention to aligning programs’ mission and strategies
should reflect best business practices, including those pertaining to gender representation.
Using the AACSB Datadirect (AACSB, 2013b), we created a database that included all AACSB-accredited members in the United States and their information for
undergraduate enrollment, faculty participation, school
admission, and non-confidential financial characteristics.4
Table 1 presents summary data for the enrollment and
degree attainment variables between the 2003–2004 and
2011–2012 academic years. The AACSB BSQ reports provide information dating back to 2001; however, some pertinent variables to this study were not collected until 2003.
For growth rate comparisons, we examined the entire
83
sample from 2003 through 2011 and compared it to a subsample between 2007 and 2011 to account for possible
effects of the recent financial crisis on business school
enrollment.
According to Table 1, the total enrollment at AACSBaccredited institutions in the United States increased from
707,890 to 764,084, or almost 8%, during the entire sample
period, notwithstanding a 3% decline in enrollment
between 2007 and 2011, which may be the effect of the
global economic crisis. The number of male students
enrolled increased by roughly 15% between 2003 and
2011, but the number of female students fell slightly, by
0.55%. The decline was more pronounced in the later part
of the sample period. Female student representation in UBS
(measured by the percentage of female students enrolled in
business programs) is the variable of interest in this study.
Table 1 shows that women’s representation at AACSBaccredited member institutions in the United States
declined from 44.7% in 2003 to 41.1% in 2011.
In addition to enrollment, we also use degree attainment
to examine education trends. Our AACSB data on degree
attainment show that while the total number of bachelor’s
business degrees awarded rose by almost 9% during the
2003–2011 period and the number of degrees earned by
male students rose by 16%, the number of degrees awarded
to female students remained virtually unchanged during the
entire sample period, rising a mere 0.21% (Table 1). Furthermore, female student representation among college of
business graduates declined from 46.5% in 2003 to 42.8%
in 2011.5 This is consistent with results found in Ball
(2012) that show that although some business subdisciplines are becoming more women dominated, the size of
these subdisciplines as a percentage of all business programs is decreasing; thus, the total women’s representation
is falling. In sum, women’s representation in UBS measured by either enrollment or degrees awarded has declined
in the last decade—remarkable findings in light of a nationally reported reversal in gender gap.
ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND RESULTS
The empirical analysis of a choice of business programs for
female students using AACSB dataset is similar to that
undertaken by studies that test general college choice models, which typically include variables of educational
achievement, socioeconomic background characteristics,
financial variables, and institutional characteristics (Hanson
& Litten, 1982; Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; St. John &
Starkey, 1995). Here we do not attempt to predict the
choice of major (the AACSB dataset contains information
on business programs only). Rather, we extend the literature by investigating the relationship between female student representation in UBS programs and factors that can
potentially influence the enrollment of female students.
84
L M. DAVIS AND V. GEYFMAN
TABLE 1
Enrollment and Degrees Conferred
Growth rates (% change)
All schools
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Number of schools
Total enrollment
Male students
Female students
% Female students
Degrees conferred
Male students
Female students
% Female degrees
2003
2007
2011
Full sample period
2003–2011
Post financial crisis
2007–2011
410
707,890
391,821
316,069
44.65
165,386
88,486
76,900
46.50
445
787,797
450,093
337,704
42.87
159,408
88,899
70,509
44.23
467
764,084
449,760
314,324
41.14
179,865
102,807
77,058
42.84
13.90
7.94
14.79
¡0.55
#
8.75
16.18
0.21
#
4.94
¡3.01
¡0.07
¡6.92
#
12.83
15.64
9.29
#
Note: Bold text indicates the variable of interest—percent of female enrollment. Source: AACSB Business School Questionnaire (AACSB, 2013b) for
Undergraduate Enrollment and faculty and staff.
Table 2 provides a list of AACSB variables and their short
description.
In addition to three categorical variables—public, state,
and region—there were a total of 24 variables in the dataset. We performed two factoring procedures (orthogonal
and oblique rotations) in Stata (ver. 12.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX) to extract a set of factors from the larger
set of variables. The results of factor analysis produced
four factors based on eigenvalue criteria, Scree plots, and
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures, indicating that
these factors were appropriate, statistically significant, and
explained a cumulative 87% of the variance. In addition to
the factor of women’s representation, the three other factors
were identified as access, educational environment, and
educational experience. Further analysis using the multivariable analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedure revealed
that these factors were statistically different from each
other; they were also statistically reliable according to the
Cronbach’s alpha measure. These procedures proved the
validity of our groups of variables; however, given the richness of the dataset, we proceeded to analyze the impact of
factors and its components on our main variable of interest.
We tested the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Access: Favorable (perceived or actual)
access factors should incentivize female students to
attend certain schools.
The variables included in this factor were tuition and fees,
SAT scores, student acceptance rate, and the percentage of
transfer students. College tuition is a significant investment
and research shows that students’ ability to pay plays an
important role in their decisions about college (St. John &
Starkley, 1995). Not surprisingly, research findings show
that there is a strong inverse relationship between tuition
increases and enrollment. Thus, we expected economic
incentives of lower tuition and fees to be positively related
to female student representation. Turner and Bowen (1999)
used SAT scores to examine the extent to which gender differences in precollegiate preparation affected the choice of
fields of study within arts, sciences, and engineering and
found that SAT scores accounted for only a part of the
observed gap, the main impact was driven by other factors.
We also tested economic and statistical significance of the
relationship between female student representation and
schools’ acceptance rates and the percentage of transfer students.
H2: Environment: Advantageous (perceived or actual)
educational environment variables should have a
positive effect on the female students’ choice of
schools.
These variables represented the size of an institution
(reported as total and by gender measures) and included the
number of students enrolled, the number of faculty, and
the number of degrees awarded. The dataset also included
the variable for the market value of university endowment.
Since we did not have a priori assumptions regarding the
relationship between women’s representation and the
institution’s size (do women prefer broad opportunities of a
large university or the personal atmosphere of a smaller
university?), it seemed worthwhile to determine whether
various measures of institution size had an impact on women’s choice of schools.
While hypotheses H1 and H2 can be used to test the
effect of traditional set of factors on student enrollment
(male or female), H3 examined the effect of variables that
may be relevant to female students’ experience only.
H3: Experience: UBS female student representation should
be positively influenced by favorable (actual or perceived) school characteristics that enhance female student experience.
GENDER INEQUALITY IN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOLS
85
TABLE 2
Variable Definitions for AACSB U.S. Accredited Member Schools
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Variable
Label
PUBLIC
STATE
REGION
Public
State
Region
ENRL_MALE
ENRL_FEM
DEGREES_MALE
DEGREES_FEM
FACULTY_AQ
FACULTY_PQ
ENDOWMENT
TUITIONFEES_INSTATE
TUITIONFEES_OUTSTATE
ADM_N APPL
ADM_N ADMITTED
ADM_N ENTRANTS
ADM_SAT
AVG_CLASSSZ
STUD_FACULTYRATIO
PARTICIPFACLTY_MALE
PARTICFACLTY_FEM
AACSBFACULTY_TOTAL
PRCT_TRANSFER
ENRL_TOT
PRCENRL_FEM
Enrl-BA-L and U Div-total male
Enrl-BA-L and U Div-total female
Degrees-bachelor of arts-men
Degrees-bachelor of arts-women
Faculty: academically qualified-total
Faculty: professionally qualified-total
Endowment market value-total
Tuition & fees-undergrad: in state
Tuition & fees-undergrad: out of state
Adm: UG-total-N applicants
Adm: UG-total-N admitted
Adm: UG-total-N entrants
Adm: UG-Avg SAT score
Mean class size-undergraduate
Ratio of students to faculty-undergraduate
Faculty: participating, all-men
Faculty: participating, all-women
Faculty: total
Prct_transfer
Total enrollment
Prct_female enrolled
DEGREES_TOT
PRCDEGREES_FEM
Degrees_total
Prct degrees- bachelor of arts-women
PRCFCLTY_Fem
ADM_RATE
Prct Faculty_Female
Admission_Rate
Definition
A dummy variable; public D 1 if public university, public D 0 otherwise.
U.S. state
U.S. region; we separated our dataset into Midwest, Northeast, Pacific,
South, and West
Undergraduate business school male student enrollment
UBS female student enrollment
Business degrees awarded to male students
Business degrees awarded to female students
Total number of academically qualified faculty
Total number of professionally qualified faculty
Market value of university endowment
Tuition and fees for the in-state student
Tuition and fees for the out-of-state student
Total number of applications
Total number of students admitted
Total number of entrants
Average SAT score reported by school
An average undergraduate business school class size
Student-faculty ratio
Total number of male faculty
Total number of female faculty
Total number of faculty
The percentage of transfer students
Total enrollment D ENRL_MALECENRL_FEM (authors’ calculations)
Female business students as a percentage of total UBS enrollment
D (ENRL_FEM/ENRL_TOT)*100%
Total degrees conferred D DEGREES_MALE C DEGREES_FEM
Percent of degrees awarded to female students
D (DEGREES_FEM/DEGREES_TOT)*100%
Female faculty representation in UBS
Percent of students admitted to a program
D (ADM_N ADMITTED/ADM_N APPL)*100%
Source: AACSB Salary Survey, Business School Questionnaire: Enrollment-Undergraduate, faculty and saff, and custom data calculations performed by
the authors (AACSB, 2013b).
These factors included enrollment (total and by gender),
degrees awarded, average class size, student–faculty ratio,
and female faculty representation. Obviously, H3 overlaps
somewhat with the other hypotheses, but we focused our
attention here on female students’ experience. Krupnick
(1985) reported on differences in communication styles of
male and female students and the resultant effect on teaching and learning at Harvard College. Classroom discussions
and active class participation are considered an integral
part of education, but according to the study female students tended to be underparticipating. The report showed
that male students tended to dominate discussions, and
women were more vulnerable to interruptions and generally
uncomfortable or unwilling to compete against men. Thus,
in this study we hypothesized that women may be drawn to
programs where they know there are other female students,
so the number of female students was included in the set of
experience factors. We included a student-faculty ratio,
because female students may prefer a more personal and
supportive learning experience. Previous studies found that
that the presence of female instructors had a positive effect
on female students’ participation in classroom discussions
(Crombie et al., 2003; Krupnick, 1985). Krupnick found
that women spoke almost three times longer under instructors of their own sex than when they were in classes led by
male instructors. Similarly, because female students may
be attracted to schools with more same-sex role models, we
included a variable for the percentage of female faculty at
AACSB-accredited institutions. Empirical evidence suggests that there is a positive effect of role models in underrepresented groups, such as women and minority students
(Rask & Bailey, 2002). Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for variables in the total sample, and for public and private institutions.6 This study used a t test with a .05 level of
significance to compare differences of the means of a paired
sample and independent samples. We found that public
institutions were generally larger, had a higher average
class size and student-faculty ratio compared to private
institutions. Public universities also reported a higher average number of female students enrolled. Although the
86
L M. DAVIS AND V. GEYFMAN
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics by Type of Institution
Total
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Variable
ENRL_MALE
ENRL_FEM
DEGREES_MALE
DEGREES_FEM
FACULTY_AQ
FACULTY_PQ
ENDOWMENT ($mil.)
TUITIONFEES_IN STATE ($thou.)
TUITIONFEE_OUTSTATE($thou.)
ADM_N APPL
ADM_N ADMIT
ADM_N ENTRANT
ADM_SAT
AVG_CLASSSZ
STUD_FACLT_RAT
FACLTY_MALE
FACLTY_FEM
FACLTY_GENDER
AACSBFACULTY
PRCT_TRANSFER
ENRL_TOT
PRCENRL_FEM
DEGREES_TOT
PRCDEGREE_FEM
PRCFCLTY_Fem
ADM_RATE
Public
Private
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
p
3,978
3,973
3,688
3,683
3,778
3,887
4,168
4,182
4,128
3,307
3,313
3,536
2,872
4,054
4,052
4,058
4,056
4,056
4,052
2,587
3,970
3,953
3,682
3,668
4,056
3,248
977.5
737.5
225.2
179.9
51.6
23.9
$23.5
$12.3
$18.4
1809.0
1047.0
515.0
1067.0
40.6
20.8
42.7
15.7
58.4
79.9
23.3
1715.6
43.1
405.2
44.9
27.7
67.7
840.4
702.2
193.3
157.4
34.9
22.2
$59.8
$11.5
$8.2
2000.8
979.3
467.4
260.1
95.0
10.9
29.1
10.7
38. 6
52.9
20.8
1510.2
8.3
342.4
9.2
8.6
22.3
1,513
1,512
1,429
1,429
1,422
1,478
1,574
1,597
1,597
1,223
1,232
1,317
1,022
1,562
1,555
1,551
1,551
1,549
1,555
977
1,512
1,510
1,429
1,424
1,549
1,203
809.1
630.9
177.1
149.2
41.6
18.3
$11.8
$6.3
$14.8
1471.0
872. 9
434.1
1021.4
40.3
22.8
34.2
13.1
47.4
63.6
27.7
1440.5
44.1
326.2
46.3
28.4
68. 7
629.2
496.4
153.9
129.4
28.2
17.2
$38.9
$3.3
$5.9
1730.2
925.4
361.1
242. 8
115.7
10.3
22.5
8.6
29. 8
41.9
22.7
1097.6
8.9
277.1
9.8
8.6
21.5
757
753
693
688
761
778
842
783
756
629
628
672
656
760
811
822
822
822
811
501
751
740
687
679
822
613
496.6
342.1
122.9
90.7
40.9
19.0
$41.9
$26.5
$26.4
1625.3
811.3
251.5
1122.3
27.2
12.7
32.4
11.8
44.2
62.6
12.6
836.0
41.3
213.1
43.0
27.6
61.0
363.5
255.7
86.1
65.8
28. 9
21.6
$104.6
$7.6
$8.1
1614.8
658.5
178.8
265.6
12.3
7.7
22.8
7.8
29.5
42.9
11.6
607.7
9.2
148.6
10.1
10.3
19.5
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
y
**
**
**
**
y
**
*
**
**
**
**
**
y
**
Note: Bold text indicates the variable of interest—percent of female enrollment. The number of observations for public and private universities do not
always add up because there were schools in the sample that did not identify themselves as either of these categories.
yp D .10, *p D .05, **p D .01.
average number of female faculty was slightly higher at
public universities compared to private universities, the
average percentage of female faculty representation was
approximately the same, around 28% of all business faculty. Combined with the fact that public universities
reported a larger student population, the latter finding suggests that there was a lower ratio of female faculty to students; thus, female faculty’s time that could be devoted to
advising or mentoring individual female students was
limited.
Table 4 presents pairwise correlations between the main
variable of interest (the female student representation) and
other factors in our dataset. According to Table 4, the percentage of female students in UBS was significantly related
to access variables, confirming H1. Specifically, there was
a negative association between female student representation and tuition and fees (–.19) and SAT score (–.16). In
addition, the percentage of female business students in a
program was positively related to the admission rate. In
terms of educational environment described in H2, Table 4
shows that there was a negative association between female
student representation and male enrollment (–.13), degrees
awarded to male students (–.17), and the size of school
endowment (–.13). Collectively, these findings indicate that
female students did not seem to care for larger institutions,
although as we observed in Table 3, there were more
female students on campuses of public universities, which
were on average larger than private universities.
Finally, the group of variables identified as womenfriendly measures shows that there was a significant positive association between female student representation and
the percentage of degrees awarded to female students,
which confirms H3. The average class size and the student–
faculty ratios were inversely related to female student
representation, but these were statistically significant at private institutions only, implying that female students at private institutions tended to vote with their feet (i.e., they
were more sensitive and perhaps more insistent on lower
student–faculty ratio and smaller class sizes at institutions
for which they paid premium to attend).
The percentage of female business students was
also positively associated with the percentage of
female faculty at UBS (.18), indicating that female
students were potentially influenced by the presence of
female faculty in the classroom. This relationship was
much stronger at private schools (where the
GENDER INEQUALITY IN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOLS
TABLE 4
Pairwise Correlations: Percent of Female Students in UBS,
2003–2011
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
Variable
H1 variables: Access
TUITIONFEES_INSTATE
TUITIONFEES_OUTSTATE
ADM_SAT
ADM_RATE
ADM_N APPL
ADM_N ADMITTED
ADM_N ENTRANTS
PRCT_TRANSFER
H2 variables: Environment
ENRL_MALE
DEGREES_MALE
ENRL_TOT
DEGREES_TOT
ENDOWMENT
PARTICIPFACLTY_MALE
PARTICFACLTY_FEM
FACULTY_GENDERTOT
AACSBFACULTY_TOTAL
H3 variables: Experience
ENRL_FEM
DEGREES_FEM
PRCDEGREES_FEM
PRCFCLTY_Fem
AVG_CLASSSZ
STUD_FACULTYRATIO
Total
p
Public
p
Private
p
¡.188
¡.256
¡.161
.040
.014
.002
.027
.312
**
**
**
**
¡.343
¡.302
¡.191
.027
.014
.011
.031
.356
**
**
**
¡.128
¡.134
¡.065
¡.159
¡.050
¡.050
.018
.163
**
**
y
**
¡.132
¡.174
¡.014
¡.066
¡.131
¡.094
¡.029
¡.079
¡.039
.128
.071
.826
.177
¡.001
.018
y
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
**
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
¡.178
¡.166
¡.041
¡.050
¡.092
¡.092
¡.047
¡.082
¡.035
**
**
**
y
**
**
y
**
¡.156
¡.148
¡.045
¡.058
¡.003
¡.062
.020
¡.040
¡.029
**
**
**
.136
.091
.838
.109
.043
.027
**
**
**
**
y
.112
.049
.772
.336
¡.118
¡.104
**
y
**
*
**
**
Note: This table presents all pairwise correlation coefficients between
female student representation and other variables that describe school
access, education environment, and women-specific experience factors.
yp D .10, *p D .05, **p D .01.
correlation coefficient was .34) than at public schools
(with the coefficient of .11).
In summary, our sample of AACSB schools shows that
during the period between 2003 and 2011, the effect of
access variables was consistent with economic and socioeconomic incentives. In other words, an easier access to
institutions was associated with a greater number of female
students. The findings on the association with the metrics
of educational environment indicate that women’s representation was inversely related to the size of an institution,
where size was measured by total enrollment, degrees conferred, or the number of faculty. Last, women-friendly institutional variables of the percentage of degrees awarded to
women and the ratio of female faculty, were positively
related to female student representation, while the average
class size and student-faculty ratios were negatively related
to this variable of interest.
women’s enrollment decreased slightly and the percentage
of female students at UBS actually fell from 44.7% in 2003
to 41.1% in 2011. If it continues, this enrollment trend may
have significant impact on UBS, industry and the national
economy. In an initial attempt to understand the trend using
a variety of factors that describe school access, educational
environment, and women’s experience, we found that (a)
economic incentives and socioeconomic conditions play a
role in female students’ decision to enroll, (b) female student representation is lower at larger institutions, and (c)
women-friendly institutional factors have a positive effect
on women’s representation at UBS.
These findings are not surprising and are consistent with
previous research, but constitute only preliminary steps
past the starting line in the investigation of this topic. The
principal recommendation of this study is that more attention should be given to this enrollment trend and that additional research should be conducted on two fronts.
Continued longitudinal tracking of women’s enrollment in
UBS is needed to see if the decline continues, abates or
reverses. The annual data available from the NCES and the
AACSB can be used for this purpose. At the same time,
additional study of the factors that influence a women’s
decision to attend UBS should be undertaken. For example,
what influence do academic preparation, demographics
(rural or urban), high school counselors, and teachers have
on the decision to enter UBS?
In the meantime, university administrators and UBS must see
through any illusions they may have that the steady increase of
women undergraduates on their campuses is indicative of growth
in women’s enrollment in their business programs. They need to
recognize that during the last several years, undergraduate women
have consistently and increasingly turned away from studying
business—a trend immediately disadvantageous to them and one
with broader sociological implications. This awareness is an obvious and critical step. As we continue to learn more about the factors that influence young women to study business, it is likely that
the solution to closing the gender gap in business education will
require a multipronged strategy that addresses the issue of access
and improved campus environment for female students. This
study suggests that this can be accomplished by keeping tuition
low, class size small, and providing female students with opportunities to interact with successful female mentors and role models—all efforts that are likely to be consistent with UBS missions
and strategic plans.
NOTES
1.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study found that while the total enrollment and the
enrollment of male students at AACSB-accredited colleges
in the United States increased between 2003 and 2011,
87
Image of the Kanizsa Triangle where illusory contours create the illusion of an equilateral triangle.
2. The AACSB is a global membership association representing the largest network of business schools
focused on advancing business education.
88
L M. DAVIS AND V. GEYFMAN
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:08 11 January 2016
3. Similar findings were reported by CNBC for the
hedge funds industry (MarketWatch, 2014).
4. The list of variables and their description appears in
Table 2.
5. We have been collecting data for our own UBS (an
AACSB-accredited public university with approximately 1,500 students) since 1995. Women’s representation at our school decreased from 45% in 1995
to 33% in 2012.
6. We distinguish between public and private institutions because their operational models are inherently
different and can produce results that cannot be easily
compared and explained.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).
(2013a). 2013 Business association standards. Retrieved from http://
www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/standards/2013/eligibility.asp
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).
(2013b). Business school questionnaire for undergraduate enrollment,
faculty, and staff. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/datadirect
Ball, J. A. (2012). The gender gap in undergraduate business programs in
the United States. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 260–265.
Bridger, H. (2010, December 1). Filling in the voids. Retrieved from http://
www.broadinstitute.org/blog/filling-voids
Catalyst. (2007). The bottom line: Corporate performance and women’s
representation on boards. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/
search/node/fortune%20500%20performance
Catalyst. (2013). Why diversity matters. Retrieved from http://www.
catalyst.org/knowledge/why-diversity-matters
Cebula, R. J., & Lopes, J. (1982). Determinates of student choice of undergraduate major field. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 303–312.
Crombie, G., Pyke, S. W., Silverthorn, N., Jones, A., & Piccinin, S. (2003).
Students’ perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a
function of gender and context. The Journal of Higher Education, 74, 51–76.
Davis, L. M., & Geyfman, V. (2012). Gender inequality in undergraduate
business schools: The glass door effects. NASPA Journal About Women
in Higher Education, 5, 46–70.
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly
campus climate for women? Washington, DC: Project on the Status and
Education of Women, Association of American College.
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1984). Out of the classroom: A chilly
campus climate for women? Washington, DC: Project on the Status and
Education of Women, Association of American College.
Hanson, K., & Litten, L. (1982). Mapping the road to academia: A review
of research on women, men, and the college selection process. In
N. P. Perun (Ed.), The undergraduate woman, issues in education
(pp. 73–77). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. (1987). Studying college choice: A threephase model and the implications for policy makers. College and University, 2, 207–21.
Krupnick, C. (1985). Women and men in the classroom: Inequality and its
remedies. On Teaching and Learning, 1, 18–25.
Leppel, K., Williams, M. L., & Waldauer, C. (2001). The impact of parental occupation and socioeconomic status on choice of college major.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, 373–394.
Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and
college major choices—Gender race/ethnic, and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52, 211–234.
Malgwi, C. A., Howe, M. A., & Burnaby, P. A. (2005). Influences on
students’ choice of college major. Journal of Education for Business,
80, 275–282.
MarketWatch. (2014, January 16). Once again, women hedge-fund managers beat the industry. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.
marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/01/16/once-again-women-hedge-fundmanagers-beat-the-industry
Mauldin, S., Crain, J., & Mounce, P. (2000). The accounting principles
instructor’s influence on students’ decision to major in accounting. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 142–148.
Montmarquette, C., Cannings, C., & Mahseredjian, S. (2002). How do people choose college majors? Economics of Education Review, 21,
543–556.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). The condition of
education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Statistics.
Pew Research Center. (2013, May 29). Breadwinner moms. Pew Research
Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/
breadwinner-moms/
Pritchard, R., Potter, G., & Saccucci, M. (2004). The selection of a business major: Elements influencing student choice and implications for
outcomes assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 152–157.
Rask, K. N., & Bailey, E. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence
from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic
Education, 33, 99–124.
SHRM Research. (2006). Talent managment: Driver for organizational
sucess. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Articles/
Documents/0606RQuartpdf.pdf
St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. B. (1995). An alternative to net price: Assessing the influence of prices and subsidies on within-year persistence.
Journal of Higher Education, 66, 156–86.
Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 20 U.S.C 1681–1688
(1972).
Turner, S. E., & Bowen, W. G. (1999). Choice of major: The changing
(unchanging) gender gap. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52,
289–313.