For those of us charged with meeting our institutions’ ever ambitious enrollment goals, risk is part of the job. Institutional revenue, retention, and reputation are all at stake. The pandemic has made this work even more challenging due to educational, financial, and health-related disruptions for students, families and college communities. In addition, events of the past year have exacerbated longstanding racial, economic, and gender inequities. These developments will have a negative impact on our efforts to diversify student enrollments across the board but most especially in the STEM disciplines. Without swift and systemic interventions, we are at risk of falling even further behind in terms of STEM degree production, particularly among underrepresented populations.
Enrollment trends in STEM have been a source of frustration for educators aiming to broaden access. Despite investments in pipeline programs, increased access to upper-level math and science classes in secondary schools and the growing popularity of STEM careers, little progress has been made. Women and students of color are still woefully underrepresented, particularly in computing, the physical sciences and engineering. Data published by the Pew Research Center shows that while women comprise more than half of the college-going population, they received just 19% of the degrees awarded in Computer Science and 21% of the degrees awarded in engineering. Black students earned only 7% of STEM degrees. Even more concerning, the percentage of Black women earning engineering degrees between 2000 and 2017 actually declined by 30%. Where have we gone wrong? 
Dr. Kristin R. Tichenor
Cynics would argue that the academy doesn’t really want to diversify STEM enrollments. Our very definition of academic merit is rife with implicit bias and systemic racism. Everything from access to summer enrichment programs and standardized test scores to the availability of honors courses and the likelihood of getting a glowing recommendation letter can be correlated with socioeconomic status. The pandemic has made these inequities even more glaring given the disproportionate impact that remote learning has had on low-income students.
These inherently biased admissions practices are especially problematic for underrepresented students with an interest in STEM majors. Applicants to STEM degree programs are expected to meet higher standards than those for non-STEM majors, making it that much harder for marginalized populations to gain entry. The rationale is that certain fields of study are too rigorous for individuals with sub-par scores or grades to succeed. The irony is that students of color, first generation students and students from low income homes tend to enroll at less selective, less resourced colleges and universities than their more advantaged peers. An issue brief published by the Center for American Progress noted that Black and Hispanic students in particular are more likely to receive post-secondary credentials from schools that spend less money on their students, have lower student to faculty ratios and lower retention rates. As faculty member David Kirp noted in his Washington Post article about the University of California Berkeley’s decision to go test-blind, the lack of support services at less resourced institutions puts disadvantaged students at far greater risk of failure than if they were enrolled in degree programs at more selective institutions.
Why do we have a vested interest in broadening access to STEM degree programs? First, careers in computer science, mathematics and engineering pay more, have lower rates of unemployment and higher projected growth rates than other fields. Students of all backgrounds deserve the chance to pursue these lucrative career paths. Second, the United States is lagging in its production of STEM degrees in comparison with other advanced economies. That compromises our ability to meet the technology demands of the future and puts the nation at a competitive disadvantage. It also presents a potential national security risk. Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology projects that by 2025, China will produce twice the number of STEM PhD graduates as the US. Third, teams comprised of individuals from different backgrounds are more likely to produce creative solutions than homogenous teams. To solve the problems facing our communities, our nation, and the world, we need all the brainpower we can get.
Daunting as this task may seem, the good news is that there are concrete steps that we can take to address the race, gender and income disparities in our STEM programs. Here are five first steps to consider:
1. Start early: Offer STEM exploration programs to pre-college students. Early exposure helps to build interest and confidence, especially among students who have been historically underrepresented in science and engineering.
