Ismael Mourifié, a rising economist, discusses his groundbreaking research into the role gender plays in career path selection.
Economics professor Ismael Mourifié originally wanted to be a doctor. Growing up, he intended to study medicine but was thwarted when war came to his home country, Côte d’Ivoire. The country’s government decided to send students abroad for university. Mourifié went to Morocco to study mathematics because he had tested well in the subject. “Given the circumstances, it felt like my only option,” he said. Math led him to statistics and eventually to the field of economics, in which he earned his PhD.
His own trajectory sparked a question about the influences that guide others’ career choices, specifically women’s. Were women facing real-world obstacles in pursuing careers in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math)? His research on the topic earned him the 2017 Polanyi Prize for early-career researchers.
In addition to the underrepresentation of women in STEM, Mourifié explores phenomena in the education and labor markets, such as judicial leniency and wage inequality. He joined WashU’s Department of Economics in 2023 and is a research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research in the area of labor studies. In 2024, Mourifié was elected into the prestigious Econometric Society — a rare achievement, especially for someone so early in their career.
Mourifié spoke with the Ampersand about his research and its impact.
How did you become interested in studying why fewer women choose STEM careers?
A core premise in economics is that people make the choice that is most beneficial to them. I began reading articles about how fewer women chose to study for careers in STEM, which have relatively higher salaries than alternative career choices. Why were women choosing a less beneficial option? Some people might think that women aren’t doing STEM because they don’t like it. Reflecting on my own experience — wanting to study medicine but being directed toward math — I began to wonder if some women were also facing obstacles that limited their choices. What barriers might be preventing women from entering STEM fields?
What did you find?
We studied female students in Canada, where girls outperformed boys in nearly all subjects, including STEM, during elementary school. However, in high school, when students could choose their courses, many girls opted out of STEM, while boys did not. One hypothesis is that while women may enjoy and excel in STEM, they may avoid pursuing careers in the field due to the likelihood of being one of the few women and facing potential wage discrimination.
Another hypothesis involves gender profiling. Since fewer women pursue STEM careers, society tends to associate these fields with men. A girl who excels in math but sees few female role models in STEM may internalize these stereotypes and hesitate to invest in her own STEM education, effectively profiling herself.
Why does it matter if it’s a man or a woman in a STEM job?
I get that question a lot. People ask me why gender matters and why this is an economic question. But economics is, by definition, about how best to use scarce resources. Skills, invention, and innovation are very scarce resources. So there is a potential number of high-achieving, skilled women who would have been phenomenal STEM innovators but have not fulfilled their potential due to misallocation. Thus, our society misses out on their would-be contributions. If we put people on the path where they are best suited, they will produce a better outcome for society.
In addition, this disparity is one of the main drivers of income inequality. STEM careers generate higher general wages, and the area of STEM that women are most likely to go into — biology — generally has lower wages than engineering and computer science.
How can studying this make a difference?
To achieve more equal representation, it’s essential to consider public policy in both the labor market and education. Different causes require different policy approaches, and economics can help identify the best paths forward. In 2018, I testified before the Canadian Parliament, where, as in the United States, labor policy can be set at the federal level. Education policy, on the other hand, is largely determined by individual provinces or states. Addressing this issue effectively will require action on both fronts.
Research can also shed light on parental choices. In a survey we conducted in Nova Scotia, we asked parents how they would respond if their son or daughter struggled in math or reading. Overall, parents were more likely to seek a tutor for a son struggling in math but not in reading. Conversely, they were unlikely to get a tutor for a daughter struggling in math but would for reading. This suggests that parents invest in their children’s education differently based on gender. Highlighting these differences could encourage more informed and equitable decision-making.
What do you plan to study next?
Right now, I’m studying a similar topic in Chile. The issue is especially pronounced in Latin America and the Caribbean, where the STEM gender gap exceeds that of many other regions. The higher education admissions system in Chile is a hybrid, considering both exam scores and student preferences. In theory, this approach could encourage more women to enter STEM, but that’s not happening. I’m empirically investigating whether this system allocates students efficiently and fairly, or if the admission formula itself plays a role in the under-representation of women in STEM. If women’s scores, skills, and preferences naturally lead them toward non-STEM careers, that’s fine. But if the system itself is driving this disparity, then we’ve misallocated valuable resources and need to propose an alternative.
Header image credit: RF Studio/Pexels
