Search

In contrast to studies that identify the expected earnings premium associated with any STEM degree or with specific college majors, we account for workers’ majors and the percent of total college credits completed in STEM courses (STEM intensity). We find that STEM intensity is an important determinant of log-earnings for many STEM and non-STEM majors, and that estimated earnings gaps between pairs of majors can change dramatically when STEM intensity is accounted for. In light of this evidence, we believe policy initiatives focused on drawing students into STEM should emphasize the potential value of STEM coursework for non-STEM majors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a sample of college graduates from the NLSY97, we introduce a new approach to assessing wage benefits of STEM training, STEM jobs, and the match between the two: rather than classify individuals dichotomously as STEM or non-STEM, we measure the STEM-intensities of both their college coursework and their occupational requirements. While the orthodox approach simply predicts that 'STEM pays,' we find that workers at the top of both gender-specific STEM-intensity distributions are predicted to out-earn their counterparts at the bottom by a substantial margin -- even when we condition on their dichotomous STEM classification -- but that predicted log-wages do "not" increase monotonically with STEM-intensity throughout the entire joint distribution.