is on the rise, especially among underserved groups, including low-income students, Black and Hispanic students, and rural students (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2023). Compared to 2022, the number of students transferred to a new institution increased by 5% in 2023, mainly driven by the upward transfer from two-year to four-year institutions (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2023).

Multiple studies have found that rural students are less likely to enroll in college than nonrural students (Byun et al., 2012; Koricich et al., 2018; Wells et al., 2019). However, it has been suggested that this disparity is also influenced by multiple factors such as family income or socio-economic status, affordability of college, a lack of rural recruitment, lack of college readiness programming, and distance from institutions of higher education (Mowreader, 2024; The Institute for College Access and Success, 2023; Wells et al., 2023).

White students comprised over 52% of the enrolled student population by Fall 2021, compared to Hispanic (22%), Black (13%), Asian (7%), and Native American/Alaskan Native students (1%; NCES, 2023a). In 2021, students identifying as women (58%) outnumbered students identifying as men (42%) across all racial demographics in undergraduate school programs (NCES, 2022). Students who are parents make up nearly a quarter of undergraduate students (Urban Institute, 2024). During the 2019–2020 academic year, students who are military veterans made up approximately 5% of the undergraduate students, with average age of 32 (Melidona & Wright, 2023).

Over half of undergraduate students in the United States are first-generation college students (e.g., students whose parents do not have a bachelor’s degree; RTI International, 2023). First-generation college students’ parents’ median income was $41,000 in 2020 (RTI International, 2023). Nearly three-quarters of Hispanic/Latins/a/o undergraduate students are among this group, as well as approximately two-thirds of Black or African American students (RTI International, 2023).

According to the most current data by NCSES (NCES, 2019b), 19% of undergraduates were identified as having a physical, mental, or learning disability, and 28% of them were enrolled in a science and engineering field. Compared with undergraduates without disabilities, students with disabilities were less likely to receive financial aid and were less likely to be enrolled full time for a full year at one institution (NCES, 2019a).

According to the most current data published in Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (NCES, 2019b), out of all the undergraduates enrolled during the 2015–2016 academic year, 28% of students declared a science or engineering major field of study, with close to 8% of those students in life sciences. In academic years 2023–2024, over half of the international students studied in the STEM fields, with math

and computer science being the most common disciplines of study (Institute of International Education, 2024). The number of international students in the United States has steadily increased since 1950, with brief declines in the early 1970s, mid-2000s, and in 2020 (Stewart-Rozema & Pratts, 2023). In 2022–2023, about 5.6% of undergraduate students were international (Stewart-Rozema & Pratts, 2023).

Inequities in STEM Degree Attainment and Workforce Participation

STEM students take non-linear journeys through the landscape of higher education. Institutional curricular programming and “pathways” provide formal entry and exit points, but the journey is an experience that is unique to each student. The complexity of these student journeys can combine with the systemic barriers in ways that, for many, cause their educational STEM journey to stop short of STEM degree attainment for those who were seeking a degree (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [National Academies], 2016). This is evident in the fact that, six years after initial enrollment, about half of the students enrolled in a STEM bachelor’s program have not earned their degrees (Eagan et al., 2014; National Academies, 2016; Van Noy & Zeidenberg, 2014).

Though the proportion of science and engineering (S&E) degrees earned by underserved minorities increased between 2011 and 2020, degree attainment saw uneven growth and representation between racial groups. For example, one study reported that 40% of Black and 37% of Latina/o students switch majors before earning a STEM degree, compared with 29% of White STEM students (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). White students and Asian students make up a disproportionately large share of S&E degree recipients at the bachelor’s level and above (NCSES, 2023a). From 2021 to 2022, White students and Asian students earned over 70% of bachelor’s degrees across all STEM fields (NCCES, 2023c, Table 318.45).

Limited research on community college and career and technical education (CTE) students focuses on persistence, completion, or transfer (Soliz, 2023). One of the most robust studies within this small research base is a national survey of CTE and STEM pathways by Van Noy and Zeidenberg (2017). The authors utilized national transcript data to provide a descriptive portrait of students who navigate STEM and technician programs. Their findings suggest that, nationally, 13% of students enrolled in technician programs earned a certificate or associate degree. About 19% of students in technician programs transferred to a four-year institution in STEM within six years. Further, a small percentage of these students (7%) earned a bachelor’s degree and 41% left without a credential (Van Noy & Zeidenberg, 2017). An earlier study situated within the state of California

with a focus on CTE transfer rates indicated a similar transfer rate, showing that 20.5% of students starting in CTE courses or programs and having finished at least 12 transferrable credits transferred into a four-year program (Karandjeff & Schiorring, 2011).

People who have STEM degrees on average have higher earnings in the workforce, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or disability status (NCSES, 2023a). Broadening access to STEM education and removing barriers that make it difficult for underserved populations to attain STEM degrees ultimately leads to the diversification not only of the student population but of the STEM workforce. While the overall employment in the United States has grown by 34% since 1990, STEM employment has grown by 79% (Funk & Parker, 2018). It is estimated that STEM jobs will grow at a faster rate (7% vs. 2%) than non-STEM jobs during the next ten years (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). There are discrepancies between the specific STEM expertise and upcoming work demands, and institutions are struggling to meet current and future demands for STEM majors and professionals, given the technological advances across industries. Improving STEM enrollment and attainment could help meet the need for STEM workers if we consider that identity-based barriers to education and degrees have kept the pool of potential workers artificially small.

Though the U.S. STEM workforce became more diversified in the last decade (NCSES, 2023a), equity gaps persist, and Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native people continue to be underrepresented in the S&E degrees and S&E occupations relative to their shares of the general population (Fry et al., 2021; NCSES, 2023a; Okrent & Burke, 2021). In 2021, underserved minorities (Hispanic, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native people) made up a higher share of the skilled technical workforce (32%) than those employed in STEM occupations with at least a bachelor’s degree (16%; NCSES, 2023a). While the number of women in the STEM workforce increased by 31% between 2011 and 2021(NCSES, 2023a), the gender gap remains significant, with women making up less than one-third of the STEM workforce (Piloto, 2023). In particular, women made up only 26% of computer and mathematical scientists and 16% of engineers in 2019 (Burke et al., 2022).

TODAY’S STEM LEARNING ECOSYSTEM

Institutions vary by type, culture, and mission, with different emphases around aspects of research and scholarship, education, partnerships with industry and governmental agencies, and their communities. All of this comprises institutional context and disciplinary culture that together influence how each department or program unit makes choices about which behaviors are encouraged or rewarded, discouraged or tolerated. As we

discuss later in the report (Chapters 6 and 8), this influence extends to teaching and how it is understood within the broader work of the academic unit and institution. While teaching and student learning is one inherent focus of all institutions of higher education, an emphasis on teaching and learning is not always a driving priority. For example, research plays a disproportionate role in decision making at many institutions. Other factors that influence decision making include the available resources, including the revenue from tuition and governmental funding. To help frame the discussions about priorities and decision making in later chapters, we present here some data on the types of institutions where undergraduates study STEM, with a focus on how much the student demographics vary by institution or institution type.

Institution Types and Enrollment Patterns

Our current system of higher education includes a wide variety of institution types—what we in this report usually refer to collectively as colleges and universities. This section presents a high-level overview of some of the ways that post-secondary institutions are grouped and described, including some background on the origins of various types, including some minority serving institutions (MSIs).

Undergraduate students today learn in many different types of settings. In 2022, nearly three times the number of students were enrolled at public post-secondary institutions compared to the number that were enrolled at private institutions (13.5 million vs. 5.1 million on average; NCES, 2023c,d). Institutions of higher education vary dramatically in size, with enrollment ranging from under 100 students to many tens of thousands. Some serve primarily local populations, and some attract students from across the country and the world. Budget and endowments also vary dramatically, which influence the policies and practices, as well as the student experiences.

Open-access institutions employ a non-competitive college admissions process where the only criterion for entrance is a high school diploma, certificate of attendance, or General Educational Development certificate. This type of institution includes some regional public institutions and community colleges. Community colleges enrolled 8.9 million students in 2020–2021 and educated a disproportionate share of underserved students, with 7% Asian, 12% Black, and 26% Latinx (Community College Research Center, 2022). In addition, open-access institutions are often under-resourced compared to other institutions (Yuen, 2020). Community colleges often provide a wide variety of workforce development programs that align students’ skills with local job market demand.

and Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions. Together, these colleges and universities help offer broader access to higher education for students (National Academies, 2019c).

THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL WORKFORCE

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2024a), there were 1.5 million faculty employed at degree-granting postsecondary institutions as of Fall 2022, with 63% employed at public institutions and 33% employed at private nonprofit institutions. Among full-time faculty, 72% were White, 13% Asian, 7% Black, and 6% Hispanic (NCES, 2024a). Though faculty who are women increased by 13% from 2009 to 2021, men make up a greater proportion of full-time tenured faculty. In 2022–2023, at institutions with a tenure system, the percentage of full-time faculty with tenure was higher for men than for women (53% vs. 40%; NCES, 2023f; Kezar & Acuna, 2020). White men make up a higher share of tenure-track positions than non-tenure-track positions, with 39% of professor-rank faculty being White men and 33% of non-professor-rank faculty being White men. A similar pattern is seen for Asian men (8% professor rank and 5% non-professor rank) but not for Hispanic females (3% of the professor rank and 4% of the non-professor rank; NCES, 2024a).

American institutions now heavily depend on contingent faculty (Chun & Evans, 2023; Culver & Kezar, 2020; Garcia et al., 2017; Villanueva Alarcón & Muñoz, 2023). Over the past 30 years, the U.S. academic workforce has shifted from mostly full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty to mostly contingent faculty (e.g., full-time non-tenure-track, full-time with no tenure system, and part-time faculty, included in our definition of VITAL educators). Over two-thirds of faculty members at post-secondary institutions in the United States held contingent appointments in Fall 2021, compared to just under half in Fall 1987 (Association of American Universities, n.d.). These instructors typically hold temporary appointments at colleges and universities, with appointments ranging from a single term to a few years without a guarantee the appointment will be renewed when it expires.

Research shows that the instructional workforce is less diverse than the undergraduates they teach and less diverse than the graduate students and postdoctoral scholars working in academia; in 2022, 76% of faculty were White while 52% of undergraduates were White (Hanson, 2024; NCES, n.d.b). For example, while underrepresented minority students earn 26% of STEM bachelor’s degrees, only 10% of STEM faculty at four-year institutions come from underrepresented minority backgrounds (Bennet et al., 2020; NSF, 2023). Whereas women’s overall representation has increased

steadily across all domains of study, they remain underrepresented among new hires in STEM (Wapman et al., 2022). While women earn approximately half of the bachelor’s degrees in STEM, only about 30% of tenured STEM professors and associate professors are women (NCSES, 2023a).

Recent studies have addressed the challenges of instructor workload (Griffith & Altinay, 2020; Misra et al., 2021; Taylor & Frechette, 2022). Mental health and morale are a concern for the instructional workforce with many teaching and learning professionals struggling with expectations and workload that put them at higher risk of burnout due to increases in responsibilities without increases in staffing (Hyson et al., 2021; Muscanell, 2024). One aspect of the increased workload is the number of students requesting flexibility or accommodations or needing additional academic or emotional support (Cole & Griffin, 2013; Guzzardo et al., 2021). The ability to take risks and be available to support students differs across instructional roles. For VITAL educators in particular, these challenges, coupled with the existing struggles to keep up, can take a toll on their well-being.

Centers for teaching and learning are one support and resource for the instructional workforce and they have become more common at colleges and universities over the past several decades. While these types of centers can provide instructional support to instructors, the size and scope vary by institution (Campbell, 2023; Wright, 2023). At some institutions, VITAL educators (including graduate student teaching assistants) are a significant component of the undergraduate education workforce, but they are not always the primary audience for programs run by the institution’s center for teaching and learning (Culver et al., 2023; Fuller et al., 2023). Opportunities for professional learning and development for these instructor categories is sometimes limited in part due to policies and structures around the pay and labor practices, and this has implications at institutions with a growing and heavy reliance on them for teaching capacity (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011; Hurlburt & McGarrah, 2016; Walling, 2023). These issues are discussed at greater length in Chapter 8.

The Impact of Funding on Higher Education Institutions

Funding provides opportunities and constraints on decision making including decision making about teaching. While funding is not the focus of this report it does impact student learning experiences in ways that range from the increase in VITAL faculty mentioned above to class size and resources for laboratory and field work.

Institutions have varying levels of resources and make different choices about allocating that funding. An institution often has varied funding sources, all of which contribute to its total budget and impact decision

making. Some institutions have significant endowments that support their operations; others receive significant research funding from federal and state governments, industry, and foundations, which provide prestige and influence policies and priorities. Other important sources of funding include support from state legislatures for public institutions, tuition revenue, auxiliary activities (e.g., athletics), and giving by alumni and other supporters of the institution.

Public institutions have seen dramatic changes in the percentage of their budget supported by state funding. In 2020, less than 6% of state revenue (nationally) was allocated to higher education (see Figure 2-1). In the most recent ten-year period, no state has increased its effort to support higher education across the following three measures: allocation to higher education, support per capita, and support per $1,000 of personal income (SHEEO, 2022). This lack of increase effectively functions as a decrease in state funding. This has real and profound consequences: research shows that a decrease in state funding results in declining graduation rates at four-year colleges, leading to decreases in statewide bachelor’s degree attainment (SHEEO, 2021).

Research reveals different patterns in the responses of various types of institutions to state funding cuts. In general, doctoral institutions respond to funding cuts by raising tuition and other alternative revenue sources. Four-year and two-year institutions, on the other hand, made up the gap by lowering support—cutting expenditures on instruction, academic support, and student services (Mitchell et al., 2019; SHEEO, 2021).

Several studies have demonstrated that when the National Science Foundation (NSF) has provided institutional support to HBCUs, those institutions saw a drastic increase in research capability and productivity, as well as an overall increase in institutional capacities (National Academies, 2022, 2024b). These studies show that funding is directly tied to the education and successful development of underserved students, particularly at HBCUs, and disparities in funding may be linked to lower outcomes in productivity and research capacity that impact students. Toldson (2019) reports funding, particularly at the federal level, impacts overall success at HBCUs, arguing that lower funding at HBCUs contributes to lower outcomes when compared to PWIs.

In order to help institutions make financial decisions in ways that prioritize students, the National Association of College and University Business Officers (2024c) recently created a Student Success Hub, a combination of toolkits and resources that are organized around three focused areas:

1. Data to Inform Decisions: Infrastructure, Analytics, and Usage
2. Financial Resource Optimization for Students Using Enhanced Return on Investment Concept
3. Student-Centered Planning, Processes, and Budgeting.

as a means of spreading Eurocentric norms, beliefs, and practices (e.g., linguistic, religious) to their respective tribes and communities (Beardall, 2022; Wilder, 2013).

The chattel slavery of Black people was likewise central to the European project nation-building, which was undertaken in part through the development of the education system. The Atlantic slave trade, orchestrated by Europeans, forced enslaved Black people to live and work across all of the Americas, including in the British colonies and what would eventually become the early United States. Although Black people were most often enslaved by White people on privately owned estates, many were forced to labor on colonial college campuses. Indeed, Harris et al. (2019) notes that colleges regularly “rented” enslaved Black people to build and maintain the college facilities and grounds, and Wilder (2013) details how college presidents and faculty members who enslaved Black people forced them to work on campus.

Through these actions, Europeans proclaimed themselves superior—deserving of love, respect, education, health, and limitless possibility—while Black and Indigenous people (and later other People of Color) were cast as less than human, intellectually inferior, and thus undeserving of a full life (Dunbar-Ortiz, 2021; Quijano, 2000; Wilder, 2013; Wolfe, 2006). Europeans stereotyped individuals in these groups as intellectually inferior and incapable (González-Stokas, 2023), but at the same time feared that education might embolden or empower them. Black and Indigenous people were systemically excluded from educational institutions through laws and policies that forbade and severely punished individuals and groups who attempted to pursue education (National Academies, 2023).

This worldview provided a foundational logic or assumption about what kind of people were capable of learning and whose knowledges and ways of knowing were legitimate and worthy of shaping society and being included in higher education (González-Stokas, 2023). The ideas that early American scholars used to build academia were drawn from European ideas, which not only impacted the academic profession and the disciplines but created the legacies of exclusions in contemporary STEM teaching and learning (Gonzales & Culpepper, 2024). The principles used to structure the policies and practices of these institutions, such as exclusivity in admission, were in service of the class and racial hierarchies that were entrenched at the time. Many higher education institutions did not admit students of color or women until the mid-20th century (National Academies, 2023). The debates over the renaming of buildings and colleges, such as Calhoun College at Yale (Branch, 2015), are examples of how the individuals in higher education have been identified as racist and/or inequitable in their actions, but fewer institutions have gone so far as to recognize the historical legacies of the entire system (Lee & Ahtone, 2020). While some progress has been

made to better include more diverse populations in higher education, that has not always been the goal of reform efforts and has even more rarely been the result.

Even when admission opportunities expanded, students from underserved populations have often remained marginalized. The Morrill Land-Grant Acts, beginning in 1862, facilitated the creation of public institutions for higher education in states which made it more practical for a wider variety of people in a wider variety of locations to access learning (Morrill Act, 1862). While this legislation increased the number of universities and made post-secondary education more available, the main beneficiaries remained relatively prosperous White men. Additionally, the creation of these land-grant institutions was largely carried out by appropriation and sale of Native lands and still excluded many populations from enrolling as students. Furthermore, many institutions were not optimally suited to meet the needs of the diverse students that did attend them.

The second Morrill Act of 1890 recognized and addressed this limitation but primarily did so by creating Black institutions instead of expanding access for Black students to existing institutions. These are some of the institutions the Higher Education Act of 1965 federally recognized as HBCUs. The 1890 Morrill Act therefore was one factor that allowed existing universities to continue as predominately White environments (Second Morrill Act, 1890). Overall access to higher education increased for Black students, but they remained largely excluded from the best-resourced and well-established institutions. Additionally, the creation of these new components of the higher education landscape was influenced by the existing models as structures, policies, practices, and operating principles largely replicated those first established by the colleges founded in colonial America.¹

In the early 20th century, the formation of junior or community colleges further expanded access, providing additional and often more affordable opportunities for a wider variety of students. These institutions replicated many of the policies and practices of existing institutions and helped maintain the status quo in the United States by diverting students (largely those who are part of underserved populations) from university to an extension of high school (Brint & Karabel, 1989). Undergraduate admissions further expanded in the wake of the Second World War, when many returning service

___________________

¹ The founding dates of various institutions are one window into this history: The first university (Harvard University, 1636); the first public institutions (the University of Georgia, 1785, and the University of North Carolina, 1789); the first engineering school (United States Military Academy West Point, 1802); the first technical university (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1824); the first women’s college (Wesleyan College, 1836); the first university for African American students (Cheyney University, 1837); the first designated land-grant institutions (Michigan State University, 1962, and Penn State, 1863); the first community college (Joliet Junior College, 1901); and the first Tribal college (Diné College, 1968).

members were able to attend college through the G.I. Bill, introduced as part of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, 1944; Malcom-Piqueux, 2020). However, due to discriminatory practices, many populations (especially Black veterans) were still excluded and not able to equally benefit. This more firmly entrenched racial stratification within higher education and furthered inequality (Turner & Bound, 2002).

The increase in federal funding for research has precipitated another significant change to the higher education landscape. The 1950 creation of NSF (National Science Foundation Act, 1950) and the expansion of the National Institutes of Health extramural grant program in the 1950s provided money that allowed enormous increases in research on campuses and intensified the prestige accorded to faculty and institutions with high levels of research productivity (Malcom-Piqueux, 2020; Mazuzan, 1994). Prompted by the launch of Sputnik in 1957, the Space Race effort in the United States increased federal funding for science in higher education. However, the educational aspect of this increased funding was focused on individuals to whom society accorded the greatest potential for genius-level contributions to technology, and thus once again excluded many and failed to consider ways in which society benefits when large numbers of citizens have an increased understanding of complex technologies. While efforts to improve racial equity were one part of NSF’s plan for this money, the social and political realities forced the agency to set these priorities aside (Malcom-Piqueux, 2020).

The 1965 Higher Education Act creating the federal designation of HBCUs and allocating them some dedicated funding also marked a change in overall federal support for higher education by providing grants and access to loans that increased access to higher education for students from a variety of family incomes and zip codes (Higher Education Act, 1965). The year before, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited exclusion based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. This federal legislation also contributed to increased access for students from a wide variety of races and ethnicities to institutions that had previously offered very limited access (Civil Rights Act, 1964). However, many restrictions remained in practice resulting from discrimination, implicit and explicit bias, and financial barriers, among others.

Federal legislation also increased access for other underserved groups. Title IX in 1972 further enabled participation by women (Title IX of the Education Amendments, 1972). The next year the passage of the Rehabilitation Act increased access for people with disabilities through its Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act, 1973). HSIs were established in the 1980s (formally recognized in 1992) with an intention to serve Hispanic students (Espinosa et al., 2017). The Perkins Act series of legislation (Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, 1984) helped shift vocational education

to CTE, providing programs that connect learning experiences with workforce preparation to be more meaningful and relevant to students’ needs (Fletcher et al., 2013). While these and other initiatives have dramatically increased the participation of previously underserved populations in higher education, they have not yet led to equitable opportunities and outcomes for students from all populations.

Systemic Inequities in Teaching and Learning Remain

Systemic inequities in teaching and learning have long been embedded in the practices and standards of educational institutions. The dominant teaching approach has long combined class lectures and testing. Over the past century, tutorials and small-group models have grown, innovations that well-resourced institutions were more able to provide (Zimmerman, 2020). In the past few decades, many commitments to instructional improvement have emerged, although not at a widespread level. These include centers for teaching and learning, course evaluation results in promotion dossiers, and increased use of evidence-based instructional practices (Hampel, 2021; Zimmerman, 2020).

The research university continues to set the standard and expectations about teaching and research. While the past 40 years have seen many signs of progress, in some ways, an educational crisis is recurring from one academic generation to the next with teaching continuing to be undervalued by academic units, disciplines, and institutions.

Even outside of research universities, at institutions where the “publish or perish” mindset is less prevalent, aspects of the historical context persist in, for example, the faculty hiring process; these lingering, often outdated standards are barriers to equitable and effective teaching. In a recent study, Wu et al. (2023) examined how applicant characteristics are considered and evaluated in STEM faculty hiring practices. They found that “affinity bias (preference for sameness), confirmation bias (tendency to believe perspectives that are consistent with our preconceived beliefs), and halo bias (tendency to assume an individual who exhibits one positive quality will also outperform overall)” lead to an emphasis on research and postdoctoral reputation over institutional diversity, equitable and inclusive teaching, research, and service (p. 15).

SUMMARY

The complex landscape of post-secondary education in the United States has changed over time to better include more diverse populations of students. However, policies and structures have not kept pace with the changes, and many students still do not have equitable access to STEM

learning opportunities. Demographic changes in the undergraduate population in some ways mirror demographic changes in the country as a whole. These changes reflect initiatives to better prepare students for college and to welcome students who do not fit the traditional expectations for undergraduates to enroll. This expansion of who is considered a potential member of the undergraduate student body is necessary to fairly prepare students to navigate the world and to provide opportunities for them to develop knowledge, skills, and competencies that prepare them to join the STEM workforce. Addressing the uneven representation among demographic groups in taking and completing STEM courses and degrees is a key topic that will be further addressed throughout the rest of this report. Today’s instructional workforce differs significantly from past decades, as VITAL educators have become more common and tenure-track positions have declined.

Conclusion 2.1: Undergraduate STEM education occurs in many types of institutions with varying missions, goals, resources, and student populations; but all these types of institutions share a responsibility for providing high-quality STEM learning experiences for students.

Conclusion 2.2: Many longstanding policies and practices in undergraduate STEM education have produced, perpetuated, and exacerbated differences in opportunities, experiences, and outcomes among post-secondary STEM students from underserved population groups. This is shown in research that finds that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, students of color, first-generation college goers, women, and students with disabilities are among the groups who have consistently fared worse in post-secondary STEM education.

Conclusion 2.3: Recent changes in the demographics of the student population, college costs, and pressures on higher education to meet the demands of the 21st-century STEM workplace underscore the need to re-evaluate instructional practices in STEM and improve the learning experiences of undergraduate students in STEM courses.