The Contradictory Roles of Institutional Status in Retaining Underrepresented Students in Biomedical adn Behavioral Science Majors

This study drew from a national longitudinal dataset to statistically model students’ background, first-year college experience, and institutional characteristics that contribute to the chances of persisting in a biomedical or behavioral science major through the first-year of college. Of particular interest was the extent to which institutional status affects those chances for underrepresented minority students (URMs). The two competing conceptual frameworks, anticipatory socialization theory and the mismatch hypothesis, used to understand the potential impact of status were helpful but not fully adequate for explaining the findings. Since the effects of the institutional status variables used in the study were mixed, this suggests that the controversy regarding status has less to do with mismatching underrepresented students in highly competitive institutions and more to do with the institutional culture and practices of competitive educational environments. Other contributing factors to science persistence and their implications are also discussed. Institutional Status 3 The Contradictory Roles of Institutional Status in Retaining Underrepresented Minority Students in Biomedical and Behavioral Science Majors In 2006, the US Congress held numerous hearings about why a smaller proportion of undergraduates than in the past are undertaking studies in the hard sciences. Those concerns are driven in part by interests in preserving the nation’s economic competitiveness and position in technological leadership. Some legislators have called the American science pipeline “leakier than warped rubber tubing” (Epstein, 2006). Indeed, roughly half of those undergraduates who show an initial interest in majoring in the sciences switch out of these fields within their first two years of study, and very few non-science majors switch to science majors (Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis, 2000). The rates of science major completion for underrepresented minority students (African American, Latino, and Native American) are even more dismal. Looking at degree attainment, only 24 percent of underrepresented students complete a bachelor’s degree in science within six years of college entry, as compared to 40 percent of White students (Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis, 2000). Moreover, the Sullivan Commission (2004) reported that the gap in participation rates between underrepresented minority students (URMs) and their White and Asian peers widens at the graduate and professional school levels. In Nelson’s (2004) listings of earned doctorates, for example, she reported that between the years 1993-2002, African Americans accounted for only 2.6 percent of earned doctorates in biological sciences, whereas Latinos accounted for 3.6 percent. For 2002, the report indicated only 122 African Americans and 178 Latinos received doctorates in biological sciences compared to 3,114 Whites and 580 Asians. When considering future generations of scientists and Institutional Status 4 health care professionals, the Sullivan Commission declared underrepresented minorities to be “missing persons” in those fields. Retention through undergraduate science major preparation is a crucial juncture to purposefully reverse these trends. The overarching purpose of this study is to examine factors that contribute to the chances of retaining underrepresented minority students in an undergraduate biomedical or behavioral science major. Of particular interest is the extent to which institutional status affects those chances of retention, given that this issue is relevant to current policy debates regarding access to quality higher education. Policies such as race conscious admissions practices, for example, attempt to increase the proportion of URM students attending the most elite colleges and universities. Differing theoretical viewpoints debate the benefits and concerns related to such policies, and their impact on a college student’s success. According to Anticipatory Socialization Theory (Kamens, 1981), attending “higher status” institutions should improve one’s chances of persisting. Conversely, the “mismatch hypothesis” (Sowell, 1993; Thernstrom, 1995) claims that URM students lower their odds of achieving their initial educational goals when they attend highly selective institutions where the White and Asian students are academically better prepared. By extension, applying race conscious admissions in higher education mismatches URM students and dampens their academic or career aspirations. This study will empirically examine this running debate within the context of concerns raised about our nation’s capacity to fulfill our science-related interests, especially as they relate to the growing presence of the racial/ethnic minority populations in U.S. society. A major issue raised is the public health disparities between these populations in comparison with Whites. As these disparities continue to gain increasing Institutional Status 5 prominence on the national health policy agenda, the education of aspiring URM science majors takes on even greater significance. Background According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2001), three of the most important variables contributing to undergraduate degree completion in the sciences are the intensity and quality of high school curriculum, test scores, and class rank or grade point average in high school. However, undergraduate science, math, and engineering (SME) majors are usually better prepared than students in other majors (Seymour, 1992). Nonetheless, SME majors are also more likely to switch majors, as noted earlier. Students are particularly vulnerable to changing their initial educational course during the first year of college (Tinto, 1993; Upcraft & Gardner, 1989). There is a voluminous body of research regarding undergraduate student persistence (see for example Astin, 1993; Braxton, 2000; Hurtado, in press; Nora et al., 2005; Tinto, 1993). A few important points relevant to retaining URM students can be drawn from this literature. First, an individual student’s own educational success is more than the sum of his or her personal will, aspiration, and traditional academic indicators such as test scores and high school grades. Other factors, such as one’s gender, racial, and socio-economic background, for example, also help shape one’s opportunity for college success. Second, institutional structures and normative contexts are differentiated and can be potent socializing forces that affect where the student ultimately lands in his or her educational journey. Third, educational experiences within institutions are not uniform but are directly affected by a student’s racial background and the structure of opportunity encountered in predominantly White institutions (PWIs) and Minority-serving institutions Institutional Status 6 (MSIs), which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs). Our focus is specifically on URM students, their science major choice, and the type of institution they attend. A study by Grandy (1998), which examined the reasons why capable minority students either persisted or abandoned academic tracks in the sciences, found that support from other minorities at their institution had important effects on their commitment to the science field both during and after college. When looking at type of institution attended, Grandy showed that students at the university level were more likely to persist in the sciences than students at other types of institutions. Moreover, university students indicated they received more support from advanced students of their own ethnic minority group and within their major in the form of academic advice and mentorship. However, URM students enrolled at more selective institutions, including many research universities, are less likely to persist if these environments engender stereotypes that devalue their expectations of succeeding as science majors or if their coursework does not relate back to improving conditions in their communities (Bonous-Hammarth, 2000). In a recent study, Bonous-Hammarth (2006) found that attending a selective institution is negatively associated with URM persistence as science majors, arguing that a lack of institutional diversity and a highly competitive environment work jointly to impede URM persistence, especially when there are fewer minority students present on