The Global Gender Gap in STEM Applications: Pipeline vs. Choice
Abstract
Women make up only 35% of global STEM graduates, a share unchanged for a decade. We separate gender differences in academic preparation (the pipeline) from gender differences in application decisions (the choice gap) across ten centralized university admissions systems, where eligibility is set by academic performance and assignment runs through variants of deferred acceptance, under which students have little incentive to misreport. Restricting attention to high-achieving students, for whom access constraints are least likely to bind, isolates application behavior from the most obvious barriers. The pipeline gap varies widely, from female disadvantage in Uganda to female advantage in Sweden, and broadly tracks labor-market gender parity. The choice gap does not: it is large and negative in every setting, and even among top scorers women are about 24 percentage points less likely than men to rank a STEM program first, a gap exceeding 20 points in eight of the ten. The pattern holds when STEM is counted anywhere on the list rather than only first. The gap is large enough that closing the pipeline gap entirely would still leave high-achieving STEM applicants majority male, between 57% and 75%, in every setting we study.
Isaac Ahimbisibwe, Adam Altmejd, Georgy Artemov, Andrés Barrios-Fernández, Aspasia Bizopoulou, Martti Kaila, Jin-Tan Liu, Rigissa Megalokonomou, José Montalbán, Christopher A. Neilson, Sebastián Otero, Jintao Sun, Xiaoyang Ye, "The Global Gender Gap in STEM Applications: Pipeline vs. Choice", Economics of Education Review, 2026.
@article{ stem-major-gender-gaps_2026,
title = "The Global Gender Gap in STEM Applications: Pipeline vs. Choice",
author = "Ahimbisibwe, Isaac and Altmejd, Adam and Artemov, Georgy and Barrios-Fernández, Andrés and Bizopoulou, Aspasia and Kaila, Martti and Liu, Jin-Tan and Megalokonomou, Rigissa and Montalbán, José and Neilson, Christopher A. and Otero, Sebastián and Sun, Jintao and Ye, Xiaoyang",
journal = "Economics of Education Review",
year = "2026",
note = "rr"
,
abstract = "Women make up only 35% of global STEM graduates, a share unchanged for a decade. We separate gender differences in academic preparation (the pipeline) from gender differences in application decisions (the choice gap) across ten centralized university admissions systems, where eligibility is set by academic performance and assignment runs through variants of deferred acceptance, under which students have little incentive to misreport. Restricting attention to high-achieving students, for whom access constraints are least likely to bind, isolates application behavior from the most obvious barriers. The pipeline gap varies widely, from female disadvantage in Uganda to female advantage in Sweden, and broadly tracks labor-market gender parity. The choice gap does not: it is large and negative in every setting, and even among top scorers women are about 24 percentage points less likely than men to rank a STEM program first, a gap exceeding 20 points in eight of the ten. The pattern holds when STEM is counted anywhere on the list rather than only first. The gap is large enough that closing the pipeline gap entirely would still leave high-achieving STEM applicants majority male, between 57% and 75%, in every setting we study."
,
url = "https://www.christopher-neilson.com/work/documents/STEM_Gender_Gap_Pipeline_vs_Choice_2026.pdf"
,
url_article = "https://www.christopher-neilson.com/work/documents/STEM_Gender_Gap_Pipeline_vs_Choice_2026.pdf"
}
The online appendix is included in the PDF (pp. 23–47). The project’s online materials — country-by-country institutional background, the score-bin figures, and the underlying data — accompany the paper as a companion website.
- Coauthors: , , , , , , , , , , ,
-
Status:
1st R&R · submitted
Venue: Economics of Education Review - Date: 2026-08-28