A new article in the Journal for STEM Education Research challenges the longstanding “leaky pipeline” narrative that has shaped U.S. education and workforce policy for decades.
The article, “Reconceptualizing College STEM Pathways: Is ‘Leaving STEM’ the Problem?”, was authored by Hal Salzman, Ph.D., Bloustein School Professor and Senior Faculty Fellow at the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development; Daniel Douglas, Ph.D., Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Montclair State University; and Khudodod Khudododov, Ph.D., Research Project Manager at the Heldrich Center. Using nationally representative, longitudinal data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students surveys, the authors analyze first-year-to-bachelor’s degree pathways for two cohorts of four-year college students entering college in 2004 and 2012.
The study finds that while many students who enter college intending to major in STEM fields leave those majors, an equal number move into STEM during college — resulting in graduating STEM cohorts that are larger than the original first-year STEM-intending classes. Although approximately one-third of STEM-intending first-year students graduate in non-STEM majors, the total number of STEM graduates exceeds the size of the first-year STEM cohort in both graduating classes examined. Nearly one in five STEM graduates began college as non-STEM or undeclared majors — students the authors describe as “late entrants” into STEM fields.
The “leaky pipeline” metaphor has been widely used in K–12 education, higher education, and workforce development to frame concerns about the United States’ competitiveness and the perceived loss of STEM talent. This framing has driven decades of investments aimed at minimizing attrition, often based on the assumption that STEM pathways are unidirectional and that leaving STEM represents wasted human capital.
The authors argue that this assumption is not supported by empirical evidence. Rather than a fixed pipeline dependent on early preparation alone, STEM pathways reflect a fluid process of exploration, major switching, and late entry — consistent with the U.S. education system’s emphasis on delayed choice and “contest mobility.” The findings suggest that efforts to strengthen STEM outcomes should account for the significant role colleges play in drawing students into STEM fields after matriculation.
The article is based on students who completed bachelor’s degrees within six years and provides an empirical reconciliation between longstanding policy concerns about STEM attrition and the realities of student decision-making across college careers.
The research team also authored a 2025 article in the Journal for STEM Education Research using course transcripts to create an empirically sound definition of STEM.