Then and Now: Summary and Implications

  • Elaine SeymourEmail author


Throughout this book, we seek to answer a number of related questions: What are the rates of loss from STEM majors, which students leave, why, when, and how do they leave, and with what consequences, where do they go, and what enables those who stay to persist? In answering these questions, we also discuss what has, and has not, changed since the original study, both in the extent of persistence, loss, and relocation from undergraduate STEM majors, and in what contributes to these patterns. We also comment on what we might have previously overlooked, and what new issues have emerged in the socio-economic context in which higher education now operates. In this final chapter, we summarize our answers to these questions and discuss their implications.


  1. Andrews, G. J. (1997). Workshop evaluation: Old myths and new wisdom. In J. A. Fleming (Ed.), New perspectives on designing and implementing effective workshops (pp. 71–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.Google Scholar
  3. Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau4734. Scholar
  4. Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001). National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  5. Connolly, M. R., & Millar, S. B. (2006). Using educational workshops to improve instruction in STEM courses. Metropolitan Universities, 17(4), 53–65.Google Scholar
  6. Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410–429. Scholar
  7. Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eagan, K., Hurtado, S., Figueroa, T., & Hughes, B. E. (2014). Examining STEM pathways among students who begin college at four-year institutions. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One, 11(7), e0157447. Scholar
  10. Ferrare, J. J. (2019). A multi-institutional analysis of instructional beliefs and practices in gateway courses to the sciences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrare, J. J., & Miller, J. (2019). Making sense of persistence in scientific purgatory: A multi-institutional analysis of instructors in introductory STEM courses. The Journal of Higher Education. Scholar
  12. Hilsen, L. R., & Wadsworth, E. C. (2002). Staging successful workshops. In K. H. Gillespie (Ed.), A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources. Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, Y.-G., & Ferrare, J. J. (2019). Finding one’s place or losing the race? The consequences of STEM departure for college dropout and degree completion. The Review of Higher Education, 43(1), 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rask, K. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 892–900. Scholar
  15. Ruane, I. W. (2012, July–August). Effortless perfection. The Undergraduate. Harvard Magazine, 55–56. Retrieved from
  16. Seymour, E. (2001). Tracking the process of change in U.S. undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 86, 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seymour, E., Melton, G., Pedersen-Gallegos, L., & Wiese, D. J. (2005). Partners in Innovation: Teaching assistants in college science courses. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Seymour, E., & DeWelde, C. (2016). Why doesn’t knowing change anything? Constraints and resistance, leverage and sustainability. In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress, & L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Seymour, E., & Fry, C. F. (2016). The reformers’ tale: Determining progress in improving undergraduate STEM education. In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress, & L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Travers, L. V., Randall, E. T., Bryant, F. B., Conley, C. S., & Bohnert, A. M. (2015). The cost of perfection with apparent ease: Theoretical foundations and development of the effortless perfectionism scale. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication., 27(4), 1147–1159. Scholar
  21. Weaver, G. C., Burgess, W. D., Childress, A. L., & Slakey, L. (2016). Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Yee, C. (2003, September 23). Committee unveils Women’s Initiative report. The Chronicle. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ethnography and Evaluation Research (E&ER)University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations