Introduction
The interplay between individual characteristics and societal influences in shaping life outcomes has long been a focal point in social science research. One particularly intriguing area of inquiry is how seemingly random variables, such as the sex of a child at birth, might influence significant life decisions, including the choice of college major. This essay proposes a random treatment study to investigate the effect of sex at birth—a naturally random variable—on students’ academic trajectories in higher education. The purpose of this study is to explore whether, and to what extent, an individual’s sex at birth impacts their likelihood of pursuing certain fields of study, while critically addressing the challenges of isolating this random treatment from socially constructed gender influences. The essay begins by justifying the selection of sex at birth as a random treatment variable, followed by a detailed explanation of the proposed study design and comparison methods. Furthermore, it acknowledges the non-natural aspects of this experiment due to societal gender norms, as advised by my professor, and concludes with a reflection on the implications of the findings for social science research. By drawing on existing literature and applying a critical lens, this study aims to contribute to broader discussions on gender and educational outcomes.
Justification of Sex at Birth as a Random Treatment Variable
The concept of a random treatment variable is central to this study, as it ensures that the treatment is not influenced by external or predictable factors, thereby allowing for a more robust causal inference. Sex at birth, determined biologically by the random combination of X and Y chromosomes, fits this criterion effectively. At the point of conception, the likelihood of a child being born male or female is approximately equal, with no systematic influence from exogenous factors such as socioeconomic status, parental preferences, or environmental conditions (Hardy, 2002). Unlike other variables that might correlate with external circumstances—such as family income or geographic location—sex at birth operates independently of a family’s social or economic context at the moment of assignment. This randomness makes it a strong candidate for a natural experiment in social science research.
Importantly, sex at birth must not serve as a proxy or instrument for another causal variable in the model. In this study, the treatment is the biological assignment of sex itself, rather than a stand-in for gender identity, societal roles, or other constructs that develop post-birth. While gender norms and stereotypes undoubtedly shape individuals’ experiences (Ridgeway, 2011), the initial assignment of sex remains exogenous to these influences. Therefore, this study focuses on the direct effect of being born male or female, rather than the downstream consequences of gendered socialisation, though these will be critically considered in the analysis. By anchoring the research on this biologically random variable, the study seeks to isolate a specific causal pathway while acknowledging the broader social context.
Study Design and Research Question
The central research question of this study is: How does the sex of children at birth affect their choice of college major? The outcome variable—choice of major—is a significant social phenomenon, as it often reflects broader patterns of gender stratification in education and the labour market. For instance, existing research highlights persistent disparities, with males overrepresented in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields and females in humanities and social sciences (Charles & Bradley, 2009). While these trends are well-documented, the extent to which they can be traced back to a random variable like sex at birth remains underexplored.
The proposed study adopts a natural experiment framework, leveraging the random assignment of sex at birth as the treatment variable. The population of interest includes first-year college students across a diverse range of institutions in the UK, ensuring variability in socioeconomic backgrounds and institutional cultures. Data on sex at birth would be collected from official records, while choice of major would be obtained through university administrative databases or self-reported surveys at the point of enrolment. To ensure ethical compliance, anonymity and informed consent would be prioritised in data collection, adhering to guidelines set by bodies such as the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018).
The study would employ a comparative approach, dividing the sample into two groups based on sex at birth: male and female. Statistical methods, such as logistic regression, would be used to assess the probability of choosing specific majors (e.g., STEM vs. non-STEM) as a function of sex at birth, while controlling for potential covariates like parental education and socioeconomic status. This design allows for the estimation of the average treatment effect (ATE) of sex at birth on major choice, providing insight into whether biological assignment inherently influences academic preferences or whether observed differences are entirely attributable to social influences.
Addressing the Non-Natural Elements of the Experiment
While sex at birth is a random variable, it is imperative to acknowledge that the subsequent experiences of individuals are not immune to societal influences, as highlighted by my professor. Indeed, although the treatment itself is exogenous, the pathways through which it affects outcomes such as college major choice are often mediated by non-random, gendered social structures. For example, research indicates that from an early age, boys and girls are exposed to differential expectations and opportunities based on societal gender norms. Girls may be steered towards nurturing or expressive fields, while boys are encouraged to pursue analytical or technical subjects (Eccles, 2011). These influences—ranging from parental expectations to teacher biases and media portrayals—are not natural experiments but rather systematic factors that could confound the relationship between sex at birth and major choice.
This limitation suggests that the proposed study, while grounded in a random treatment, operates within a broader context of social construction. To address this, the analysis would include qualitative components, such as interviews or focus groups with students, to explore how gendered experiences have shaped their academic decisions. Additionally, controlling for variables such as exposure to gender-stereotyped career advice or participation in single-sex vs. co-educational schooling could help isolate the pure effect of sex at birth from social influences. By explicitly recognising these non-natural elements, the study avoids overclaiming causality and instead offers a nuanced interpretation of the findings, acknowledging that biological randomness operates within a socially determined framework.
Comparisons and Analytical Methods
To rigorously assess the effect of sex at birth on college major choice, specific comparisons are necessary. The primary comparison involves examining the proportion of males and females selecting majors across broad categories, such as STEM, humanities, social sciences, and business. For instance, if a significantly higher percentage of males choose STEM majors compared to females, this could suggest an inherent effect of sex at birth, though social influences must be considered. A secondary comparison would involve within-category analysis, exploring whether males and females gravitate towards different sub-disciplines within the same field (e.g., males in engineering vs. females in biology within STEM).
These comparisons would be supported by statistical techniques to ensure validity. As mentioned earlier, logistic regression models would be employed to predict the likelihood of choosing a particular major based on sex at birth, while controlling for confounding variables like parental occupational background or academic performance in secondary school. Additionally, propensity score matching could be used to balance the sample across observable characteristics, reducing bias in the estimation of treatment effects (Morgan & Winship, 2015). By combining these methods, the study aims to draw meaningful conclusions about the causal impact of sex at birth, while remaining transparent about the limitations imposed by unobservable social factors.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the comparisons would extend beyond binary outcomes. Given the evolving understanding of gender beyond the male-female dichotomy, the study would ideally account for non-binary or transgender individuals, though data limitations may restrict this analysis. Where possible, sensitivity analyses would test the robustness of findings across different categorisations of sex and gender, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the treatment effect.
Critical Reflections and Implications
While this proposed study offers a novel approach to investigating educational outcomes, it is not without limitations. The primary challenge lies in disentangling the biological randomness of sex at birth from the pervasive influence of gender socialisation, as discussed earlier. Moreover, the study assumes access to reliable data on major choices and demographic variables, which may vary across institutions or regions. Despite these constraints, the research design demonstrates an awareness of the complexity of social phenomena and draws on appropriate analytical tools to address them.
From a broader perspective, the findings of this study could have significant implications for educational policy and gender equity initiatives. If a clear effect of sex at birth on major choice is identified—independent of socialisation—it could prompt further investigation into innate predispositions or biological factors influencing academic preferences. Conversely, if social influences overwhelmingly mediate the relationship, as much of the existing literature suggests (Ridgeway, 2011), this would reinforce the need for interventions aimed at dismantling gender stereotypes in education. Either outcome contributes to a deeper understanding of how randomness and structure interact to shape individual trajectories.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has proposed a random treatment study to explore the effect of sex at birth on college major choice, leveraging the inherent randomness of biological sex assignment as a natural experiment. By justifying the selection of this variable, outlining a robust study design, and addressing the non-natural influences of gender socialisation, the research offers a balanced and critical approach to a complex social phenomenon. The comparisons between male and female students, supported by statistical analyses, aim to isolate the causal impact of the treatment while acknowledging the broader societal context. Although limitations exist—particularly regarding the interplay of biology and social norms—the study provides a foundation for further inquiry into how random variables shape life outcomes. Ultimately, the findings could inform educational practices and policies, contributing to a more equitable academic landscape. By situating this research within the wider field of social science, it underscores the importance of combining rigorous methodology with critical reflection to address pressing societal questions.
References
- BERA (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. British Educational Research Association.
- Charles, M. and Bradley, K. (2009) Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), pp. 924-976.
- Eccles, J. S. (2011) Gendered Educational and Occupational Choices: Applying the Eccles et al. Model of Achievement-Related Choices. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), pp. 195-201.
- Hardy, I. C. W. (2002) Sex Ratios: Concepts and Research Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Morgan, S. L. and Winship, C. (2015) Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ridgeway, C. L. (2011) Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
