Choosing and Changing Course: Postsecondary Students and the Process of Selecting a Major Field of Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much prior research has examined the individual-level, major-specific, and institutional correlates of college students’ choice of major, as well as the variation in labor market outcomes associated with this important choice. Extant accounts, however, largely overlook the process by which individuals change their major throughout college. This study provides a comprehensive description of major switching, and considers its relevance to concerns about stratification in postsecondary education. Drawing on survey and transcript data from students at three large universities in the United States, I find that switching is widespread, and that many students change their majors multiple times. Students appear to change majors in an effort to better fit their interests and abilities, as students seek out majors that are generally less competitive and easier. Major change further contributes to gender segregation, particularly as women leave science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields after initially selecting these at lower rates than men.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it