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

Background: Large introductory lecture courses are frequently post-secondary students' first formal interaction with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Grade outcomes in these courses are often disparate across student populations, which, in turn, has implications for student retention. This study positions such disparities as a manifestation of systemic inequities along the dimensions of sex, race/ethnicity, income, and first-generation status and investigates the extent to which they are similar across peer institutions. Results: We examined grade outcomes in a selected set of early STEM courses across six large, public, research-intensive universities in the United States over ten years. In this sample of more than 200,000 STEM course enrollments, we find that course grade benefits increase significantly with the number of systemic advantages students possess at all six institutions. The observed trends in academic outcomes versus advantage are strikingly similar across universities despite the fact that we did not control for differences in grading practices, contexts, and instructor and student populations. The findings are concerning given that these courses are often students' first post-secondary STEM experiences. Conclusions: STEM course grades are typically lower than those in other disciplines; students taking them often pay grade penalties. The systemic advantages some student groups experience are correlated with significant reductions in these grade penalties at all six institutions. The consistency of these findings across institutions and courses supports the claim that inequities in STEM education are a systemic problem, driven by factors that go beyond specific courses or individual institutions. Our work provides a basis for the exploration of contexts where inequities are exacerbated or reduced and can be used to advocate for structural change within STEM education. To cultivate more equitable learning environments, we must reckon with how pervasive structural barriers in STEM courses negatively shape the experiences of marginalized students. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40594-024-00474-7.

Self-efficacy and perceived recognition by peers, instructors, and teaching assistants in physics predict bioscience majors' science identity.

Prior research shows that in a particular science domain, students' identity depends on their self-efficacy, perceived recognition by others, and their interest in that domain. In this study, we investigated how the end of the semester physics self-efficacy and perceived recognition by others for bioscience majors enrolled in the second semester of a traditionally taught mandatory physics course sequence predict their overall science identity aligned with their disciplinary major. We find that bioscience majors' physics self-efficacy and perceived recognition not only predict their physics identity but also their overall science identity. These relations between physics self-efficacy and perceived recognition and the overall science identity of bioscience majors suggest interdisciplinary connections that may provide additional pathways for boosting students' science identity, e.g., by enhancing their self-efficacy and perceived recognition in their other mandatory courses such as physics. We also find that on average, women majoring in bioscience had lower physics self-efficacy, perceived recognition, physics identity, and overall science identity than men even though women were not underrepresented in the physics course. One possible reason is that the societal stereotypes and biases pertaining to who can excel in physics can impact women who are constantly exposed to them throughout their life.