What Matters for Majors: Program Choice in Higher Education

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

The choice of academic program is one of the most critical decisions students face in higher education, with effects on completion rates, labor market success, and prospects for social mobility. It is also a complex decision. Students rely on formal and informal networks and structures to choose a field of study that balances perceived abilities, career goals, and evolving interests. Because of the complex nature of the decision and the varied contexts in which this decision takes place, past work on major choice leaves many open questions. 

In this proposed panel, we present four papers that each approach the question of program choice through different perspectives and leverage different sources of data. The first two papers attempt to provide a comprehensive portrait of program choice in both two- and four-year contexts. In paper 1, Baker et al present unique longitudinal survey data from first-time-in-college students at four community colleges that reveal the factors students say are important in choosing a major. Preliminary findings suggest that expected returns appear to carry more weight at entry, while fit and feasibility become more salient one year later. In paper 2, Speer et al use data from the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) on incoming college freshmen (The Freshman Survey), to examine goals-driven and abilities-driven selection into majors. They find that women and high-income students are more likely to choose the more goals-driven majors, while those high in math ability tend to choose based on ability. Papers 3 and 4 examine specific factors related to program choice. In Paper 3, Page et al focus on the influence of in-course experiences on program choice. They present results from an experiment in an introductory chemistry course that assigned randomly selected students to receive course-specific, proactive outreach from a text-based chatbot with AI capability. The chatbot provided both logistical support, such as reminders about deadlines, and messages promoting a sense of belonging and inviting connection with the instructional team. While assignment to this support seems to have increased uptake of resources and decreased withdrawal from the class, it does not seem to have affected persistence in STEM. Finally, in Paper 4, Yu examines how local employment downturns shape community college students’ education and employment trajectories. Leveraging regional variation in recession severity via a difference-in-differences design with a Bartik shift-share instrument, she finds that greater local employment decline leads students to shift toward CTE programs while reducing overall persistence and enrollment intensity, with effects concentrated among financially vulnerable students. Together, these four papers provide both a variety of theoretical and practical avenues for exploring how program choice unfolds for college students and promising implications for how colleges can better support choice across student groups.

Policy Area

• Education

Chair

• Angela Boatman, Boston College

Discussants

• Anjali Pai, Brown University

• Gema Zamarro, University of Arkansas

Organizer

• Rachel Barth Baker, University of Pennsylvania

Individual Presentations

• How Community College Students Choose Programs of Study - Presenting Author: Rachel Barth Baker, University of Pennsylvania

• Proactive communication for STEM success: Impact of a course-specific chatbot in introductory undergraduate chemistry - Presenting Author: Lindsay C. Page, Brown University

• Working and Learning in Hard Times: How Economic Downturns Shaped Community College Students' Trajectories - Presenting Author: Chenjun Yu, University of Michigan