Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. 1997 Westview Press.
Elaine Seymour and Nancy M. Hewitt
In 1990, we began a project (funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation) whose aim was to discover, and to
establish the relative importance of, factors bearing upon the decisions of undergraduates at four-year
colleges and universities to switch from science, mathematics and engineering (STEM) majors into nonSTEM disciplines.
Table 1: National patterns of persistence in, and switching from, STEM majors at the start of the study
The sample: We interviewed broadly equal number of students who had declared STEM majors but
subsequently switched into non-STEM majors (54.6%) and graduating STEM seniors (45.4%). STEM majors
included the biological, physical, and earth sciences, mathematics, and engineering, but not computer
science—which was less commonly offered as a major at this time. We interviewed a total 335 students at
seven Institutions of Higher Education Institutions (IHEs) for approximately one hour each, and a further
125 at six IHEs during the validation process, yielding a data set of over 600 interview hours. Each of the
seven study sites was selected to represent one type of IHE. Taken together, the sample represents those
institutions in which most students receive their undergraduate STEM education. We selected only those
students who, on the basis of minimum mathematics SAT scores of 650, or ACT scores of 28, were
considered by our faculty advisers as likely to be capable of handling the course work. All interviews were
recorded and transcribed verbatim, and the resulting text data coded and analyzed, assisted by qualitative
data analysis software.
We deliberately over-sampled both women and students of color in order to discern patterns in their
issues and decisions. Under-representation in STEM majors of students of color and women of all races
and ethnicities was a persistent pattern of national concern. Losses among women were also notable,
given their high overall ability: nationwide, 60 percent of women enrolling in mathematics and the
physical sciences, and 61 percent in engineering, entered college with A-range high school GPAs. On our
own campus (the University of Colorado, Boulder), women who entered STEM majors between 1980
and 1988 had higher average GPAs than their male peers (i.e., 3.05 compared with 2.99 in engineering,
and 2.84 compared with 2.72 in science and mathematics). Both women who persisted, and those who
switched to non-STEM fields, had higher average GPA scores than men who either persisted or
switched. Indeed, the loss of all high-performing students—not only women--from these majors was
(and still is) a matter of concern.
Findings: Our findings overall are summarized in Table 2: Factors contributing to all switching decisions, to
the concerns of switchers, non-switchers, and to all students
Our initial presumption (reflected in our selection of study sites) that the institutional context was likely to
have some effect on retention and was not supported. The concerns of both switchers and non-switchers
1
focused around the same set of issues across all seven institutions: every category of problem was found
at every institution, regardless of differences in size, mission, funding, selectivity, or reputation. There
were some variations in the ranking of problems but little difference in identification of the most serious
concerns.
Another (then common) presumption—that switchers and non-switchers were likely to be two different
kinds of people, was also unsupported. We did not find differences in these two student groups--whether
by performance, motivation, or concerns--that could sufficiently explain why one group left, and the other
group stayed. Rather, the most common reasons for switching arose from a set of problems which, to
varying degrees, were shared by switchers and non-switchers alike. We also found a remarkable degree of
concurrence across the whole sample as to the nature and relative significance of these problems.
Switching decisions proved never to be the result of one overwhelming concern. The average number of
factors contributing to each switching decision was 4.2. Non-switchers mentioned an average of 5.4
concerns, compared with an average of 8.6 concerns for switchers (i.e., concerns directly influencing their
switching decisions, plus other, less critical, concerns). Thus, one simple way to distinguish switchers from
non-switchers is as people who experience rather more of the problems that are also experienced by nonswitchers.
We found a strong similarity between the concerns of switchers and non-switchers in almost half of all the
issues raised:
The four factors contributing most to switching were also cited as concerns by 31% to 74% of nonswitchers. Ranked according to their contribution to switching, these were:
 Loss, of interest in the discipline;
 Interest gained in a non-STEM major;
 Poor teaching by STEM faculty;
 Overwhelm created by the pace and load of course demands.
Seven issues were cited as shared concerns by over one-third of both switchers and non-switchers. They
included the four concerns listed above, plus (in rank order):
 Choosing an STEM major for reasons that proved inappropriate;
 Inadequacies in the provision of advising or counselling;
 Insufficient high school preparation (in higher-level math and science courses, study skills, or
understanding what college entails).
20-30% of all switchers and non-switchers shared an additional four concerns. In rank order, these were:
 Financial problems experienced in completing STEM majors;
 Conceptual difficulties with one or more STEM courses;
 Unexpected length of STEM majors (more than four years required);
2

Language difficulties with foreign faculty or teaching assistants.
Criticisms of faculty pedagogy contributed to one-third (36.1%) of all switching decisions, and were the
third most commonly-mentioned factor in such decisions. However, complaints about poor teaching were
cited as a near-universal concern by switchers overall (90.2%), and were the most commonly-cited
complaints of non-switchers (73.7%). Complaints about faculty pedagogy cannot, however, be seen in
isolation. All four of the most highly-ranked factors contributing to switching decisions relate to some
aspect of teaching, or make invidious comparisons between the quality of the learning experiences offered
by former high school science teachers, or faculty in non-STEM disciplines, and that offered by STEM
faculty. Indeed, concerns about pedagogical effectiveness, assessment practices, and curriculum
structure, pervade all but seven of the twenty-three issues represented in Table 2. For example:










STEM faculty were often described as unapproachable or unavailable for help with academic
problems or career-planning;
Curve-grading practices did not provide useful feedback on students’ levels of understanding
or conceptual progress. Rather, they were viewed as part of a system intended to discourage
students;
The competitive STEM culture undermines confidence and a sense of belonging (notably
among women), and discourages collaborative learning;
Experience of conceptual difficulty in particular classes was not an insuperable barrier to
progress if addressed in a timely way. Unaddressed, it began a downward spiral of falling
confidence, reduced class attendance, falling grades, and despair, leading to exit from the
major;
Graduate Teaching Assistants bear a disproportionate responsibility for the teaching of
fundamental material in foundational STEM classes;
These classes are also too large for active or interactive learning, or connection with the
teacher;
Seniors suspected that over-packing the syllabi in foundational classes is largely maintained for
`weed-out' purposes;
Over-packed curricula lengthens the time it takes to complete an STEM degree, places extra
financial burdens on students who pay for their education by employment and/or loans.
STEM majors offer what one senior defined as “a poor profit-to-grief ratio”: the rewards of
STEM based careers following graduation are not seen as worth the effort and costs required
to get them;
Rejection of STEM careers was partly a rejection of the role models which STEM faculty and
graduate students present to undergraduates.
The Loss of Able Students from SME Majors
As indicated in Table 2, 12.6% of switchers included the experience of conceptual difficulties in
3
STEM classes as having directly contributed to their switching decisions, with difficulty with aspects of one
subject (most frequently in mathematics or chemistry) as the most common barrier to further progress.
But the proportions of all switchers and non-switchers who reported some level of conceptual difficulties
were very similar (i.e., 26.8% of switchers and 25.0% of non-switchers). Similar proportions of switchers
(40.4%) and of non-switchers (37.5%) reported that they had been inadequately prepared by their high
schools for college-level science or mathematics--notwithstanding the level of competence indicated by
their SAT or ACT scores. One-quarter (24.0%) of switchers cited difficulty in getting help from faculty or
from teaching assistants as having contributed to their decision to leave. However, three-quarters (75.4%)
of all switchers, and half (52.0%) of non-switchers also described this problem. Although we did encounter
switchers who were unwilling to undertake the heavy work demands and fierce pace in introductory STEM
classes, we also found indications in the interview data that most switchers worked hard, and had
struggled to persevere. This was supported by the mean GPA of switchers (i.e., 3.0) just prior to their
leaving STEM majors (range = 1.9 - 3.85). The mean GPA of non-switchers at time of interview was 3.15
(range = 2.95 - 3.95).
What did distinguish persisters was seeking out and finding adequate, timely help with difficulties. For
example, more switchers overall (16.9%) than non-switchers (7.2%) reported they had not worked with
peer study groups as a means to gain a better understanding of material which they found difficult. With
hindsight, 11.5% of switchers considered this omission to have contributed to their leaving. Knowing that
one is supposed seek out help with academic or other problems is part of college know-how that first
generation and other under-prepared students did not know to their cost.
Talking About Leaving Revisited: 2012-2017
In 2012, a team from the Universities of Colorado at Boulder and Madison-Wisconsin, including Elaine
Seymour, began a five-year, mixed-methods research project to explore what has and has not changed
in the learning experiences of undergraduates in STEM majors since the original study (TAL-1), and with
what consequences for student persistence. Smaller scale studies have subsequently confirmed many of
the original findings. However, there has been no investigation of STEM field-switching since TAL-1
across multiple institutions that are in process of changing teaching practices and forms of student
support in foundational STEM courses. The study explores whether and how problems with the learning
experience found to be major contributors to switching decisions have been addressed at the original
sample of seven institutions, and whether such changes enable more students to graduate in these
disciplines.
The new project comprises four inter-related, component studies, each of which employs taskappropriate research methods: (1) a study of STEM field-switching patterns based on national and
institutional data, (2) a switcher and non-switcher interview study that replicates and extends the
original research, (3) a four-part study of instructors teaching foundational STEM courses using course
observations, instructor interviews, student focus groups, and online surveys of students in those
courses, and (4) a study of instructional change at the sample institutions. Ethnographic data have been
4
gathered from three sources: student interviews, instructor interviews, and students’ write-in responses
to the online survey. Instructor interviews explore the processes that both enable and constrain uptake
of available research-grounded teaching methods and materials. Structured classroom observation and
recording were undertaken using the Teaching Dimensions Observational Protocol (TDOP), and a custom
version of the Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG) online instrument was administered to
all students in the foundational courses. Both instruments were developed by members of the research
team, and this is the largest, multi-institution deployment of both instruments to date.
A data library is being constructed from all data sources, allowing cross-data analyses that include:
(1) tracking of students throughout the project, (2) exploration of underlying patterns in the data using
qualitative techniques, multi-dimensional scaling, and social network analysis, (3) multi-level regression
analyses to assess how student demographic and academic characteristics, SALG responses, and course
characteristics such as instructional methods predict the probability of students switching from their
major later in the study, (4) identification of variables that predict switching, and the relative weight of
individual predictors. These analyses will shed light on links between particular teaching methods used
in foundational STEM courses and their persistence outcomes in students.
Project findings will have salience both for the research and evaluation communities and for
practitioners working on STEM-education improvement. They will offer an updated portrait of the
extent and nature of factors shaping undergraduate persistence, including issues with relevance for
particular racial and ethnic groups, and that distinguish the experiences of men and of women. They will
provide a foundation for strategies intended to improve quality, access, and persistence to graduation in
STEM undergraduate education, the wider benefits of which are scientifically-capable graduates who
are able to deploy their knowledge in a country and world facing serious economic and environmental
problems.
5