Perceived Inequities in STEM Classes Make Them Feel Competitive

Abstract

Despite efforts to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and student outcomes, STEM fields continue to lack equity, inclusion, and diversity. The disproportionate attrition of minoritized students, including first-generation and racially minoritized students, is a pressing issue in higher education. Students often cite competition as a reason for leaving STEM fields, and competitive environments may have disproportionate negative effects on minoritized students. Investigating what makes STEM environments competitive and how competition affects students’ sense of belonging is crucial for understanding minoritized student attrition from STEM fields. Therefore, we sought to understand first-generation and racially minoritized students’ conceptions of competition and its effects. To do this, we conducted semistructured interviews with 25 racially minoritized and first-generation students in an introductory biology class with a noncompetitive grading structure. A recurring theme emerged: when students labeled a class as “competitive,” they were referring to inequities—inequities in prior preparation, resources, time, understanding, and ultimately, success. The competition stemming from perceived inequities contributed to a low sense of belonging in class and in STEM generally. Because competition in STEM is a systemic issue, these findings position instructors as agents for change. Therefore, we conclude with recommendations to help instructors transform a competitive, inequitable environment into a noncompetitive, inclusive environment.

INTRODUCTION

Inequities and Attrition

Even though science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is often perceived as objective and merit-based, systemic inequities limit minoritized students’ access to resources, support, and opportunities (Posselt, 2020). These disparities create an uneven and inequitable learning environment that undermines the ideal of merit-based performance (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Posselt, 2018). Thus, inequities maintain longstanding disparities in academic outcomes between minoritized and majoritized students in STEM (Strenta et al., 1994; Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Harding, 2008; Morton et al., 2023).

First-generation and racially minoritized students navigate a disproportionate range of structural and social inequities in STEM environments. First-generation students bring significant capital, including strong familial support, a deep commitment to giving back to their communities, and a powerful motivation to excel and succeed. However, as the first in their families to attend college, they often have not yet learned or been given the social capital necessary to navigate academic institutions and the often-oppressive structures within STEM fields (Yosso, 2005). For instance, first-generation students often navigate higher education, particularly demanding fields like STEM, without the same access to established guidance networks and resources available to continuing-generation students with a family history of college attendance (Forrest et al., 2018). Navigating these challenges presents them with additional barriers to overcome, often influencing their early performance and confidence in STEM environments (Salehi et al., 2020). For racially minoritized students, additional pressures related to racial biases and stereotype threat in predominantly White and affluent academic spaces may influence both their sense of belonging and engagement (O'Leary et al., 2020). Together, these structural and social factors interact in ways that create distinctive and challenging environments for first-generation and racially minoritized students in STEM.

First-generation and racially minoritized students often bear a hefty consequence of navigating unequal challenges in STEM environments: they leave STEM. Although Asian American and White students complete STEM degrees at rates of 52 and 43%, respectively, African American, Latinx, and Native American students have lower completion rates of 22, 29, and 25% (Malcom and Feder, 2016). These trends extend beyond racially minoritized students; first-generation and low-income students also exhibit lower STEM degree completion rates than their continuing-generation and high-income peers (Forrest et al., 2018).

The reasons for this attrition are complex and systematic, often exacerbated by poor academic performance and a lower sense of belonging in college environments (Geisinger and Raman, 2013; Davis et al., 2019; Seymour and Hunter, 2019; O'Hara, 2022). For instance, one study found that racially minoritized female students have 14% lower probability of persisting through a STEM degree if they get lower than a grade of C in even one introductory course (Hatfield et al., 2022). Additionally, first-generation and low-income students experience challenges such as financial constraints and a lack of family understanding, which add to the hurdles of succeeding in college and university (Engle, 2007). Furthermore, norms in STEM often emphasize individual performance over collaboration and mastery and add to feelings of exclusion among students who already feel marginalized (Darnon et al., 2018; Bruno et al., 2019). These challenges can leave students feeling disconnected from their peers and unsupported by their institution, further contributing to a lower sense of belonging. Although many of these factors influence students’ broader college experience, academic performance and retention gaps are most pronounced in STEM fields (Chen and Carroll, 2005; Shaw and Barbuti, 2010; American College Testing, 2015; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). So what makes STEM environments particularly detrimental for minoritized students, driving them out of these fields?

“STEM is Too Competitive”

STEM classes are often described as “too competitive” (Seymour and Hunter, 2019; Strenta et al., 1994), intensifying anxiety, self-doubt, and imposter syndrome among first-generation and racially minoritized students. For example, Posselt and Lipson found that perceived competition in STEM courses increases anxiety and depression for first-generation students, as well as for Black and Latinx students (2016). In addition, Canning and colleagues found that when first-generation students assess their classes as competitive, it can further fuel feelings of being an imposter—a sense that one's achievements may be undeserved or that others may eventually “discover” their inadequacies (2020). Some scholars have named these “imposter feelings” as one consequence of racism and other forms of oppression (McGee et al., 2022).

Competition, in some instances, could be fueled by the systemic focus on individual over communal approaches; for first-generation and racially-minoritized students, this emphasis on individual achievement can feel misaligned with their backgrounds, cultures, and values, potentially affecting motivation, engagement, sense of belonging in, and sense of purpose of their STEM classes (Diekman et al., 2011; Stephens et al., 2012; Morton et al., 2023). For example, Sommet et al. (2015) found that first-generation students in highly competitive STEM majors reported lower levels of motivation compared with their continuing-generation peers, although this trend did not appear in less competitive fields. Taken together, these findings illustrate how competitive STEM environments create conditions—such as self-doubt, decreased academic confidence, and deflated motivation—that contribute to attrition among first-generation and racially minoritized students (See next section for how instruction and assessment shape competition).

Overall, competition is such an impactful part of students’ experiences that it is cited as a major reason why minoritized students leave STEM classes (e.g., Strenta et al., 1994; Seymour and Hunter, 2019). In a survey asking students leaving STEM majors to share reasons for their decision, most students cited science courses as too competitive, with women citing it more often than men (Strenta et al., 1994). According to Seymour and Hunter, even two decades later, students still name competition in STEM environments as a reason they students leave their STEM majors (2019). To ascertain why competition drives so many students out of STEM, it is important to understand what about STEM learning environments makes them feel competitive.

What Makes STEM Feel “Too Competitive”?

Previous studies have indicated that norm-referenced grading, or grading on a curve, especially in introductory STEM courses, promotes students’ perceptions of competition (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Hurtado et al., 2012; Eagan et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2014). In classes with norm-referenced or curved grading, students’ grades are based on their performance relative to peers; this is in contrast with straight-scale grading, where one student's grade does not affect another student's grade, and there are no limits on the number of students who can secure top grades. Hughes and colleagues conducted a study across 79 introductory STEM courses at 15 U.S. colleges and found that classrooms with norm-referenced grading increased students’ perceptions of competition (2014). This is logical because in a class with norm-referenced grading, the number of top grades is limited, and students are judged against each other to determine the top scorer (Raymond, 2013; Schneider and Hutt, 2023).

Additionally, instructors’ focus on classroom goal structures can shape students’ perceptions of competition in classrooms. For example, Daumiller and Dresel (2021) found that when teachers set clear goals for learning and skill development, such as through collaborative group work or open-ended discussions, students were more likely to see the classroom as a space for mastering content rather than competing with peers (2021). On the other hand, if instructors emphasized grades, rankings, or comparisons, or used norm-referenced grading patterns, students tended to perceive the environment as more competitive and were likely to adopt performance-oriented goals (Eagan et al., 2014). Similarly, Urdan (2004) highlighted that even when instructors express a desire for students to focus on learning, mixed messages—such as a heavy emphasis on test results—can lead students to interpret the classroom as performance-driven and more competitive. Overall, the way instructors frame and communicate classroom goals directly influences whether students are pushed toward collaboration or competition in class.

Furthermore, the design of instruction and assessment in STEM courses can play a central role in shaping students’ perceptions of competition. For instance, lecture-based instruction, which limits opportunities for peer interaction and emphasizes instructor-delivered content, may reduce the opportunities for collaborative engagement and reinforce individual focus (Micari and Pazos, 2012). In contrast, students tend to view courses where they spend more time working in small groups rather than on their own as less competitive (Ghaith, 2003). Moreover, group work appears to support more cooperative dynamics when students pursue a common goal but are assigned distinct responsibilities within the group (Bertucci et al., 2016). However, even in courses that include group work, if assessments prioritize individual outcomes—such as high-stakes exams or assignments evaluated without regard to group performance—then students may not interpret those collaborative elements as indicative of a cooperative environment (Roseth et al., 2008; Micari and Pazos, 2012). When group activities are embedded within broader individualistic goal structures, students may continue to perceive the class as competitive despite the presence of collaboration (Roseth et al., 2008).

A competitive culture is further reinforced by the structural underpinnings of STEM. Morton and colleagues suggest that competition is deeply embedded in STEM education due to its emphasis in part on individualism and objectivity, which often reward personal achievement over collective effort (2023). First-generation and racially minoritized students, who are typically from backgrounds that emphasize collaboration and shared success, struggle in environments that prioritize solitary paths to achievement (Bruno et al., 2019; Darnon et al., 2018; Kundu, 2019). Imad et al. (2023) build on this explanation by highlighting the role of scarcity in the culture of STEM: where limited resources—such as top grades, prestigious internships, and competitive job opportunities—further feed into a need to compete against one another to succeed. Together, the culture of individualism and scarcity in STEM creates an environment where students come to view competition as an inherent and unavoidable. So, although not tested empirically yet, the current structure of STEM spaces can inform students’ perceptions of competition.

Goal for this Study

Although previous studies have explored how grading practices, classroom goal structures, and STEM culture can contribute to competition, they have not focused on how minoritized students specifically perceive and conceptualize competition in introductory classes. Introductory classes are particularly important in a student's STEM career because they can influence students’ perceptions of the field and impact students’ decisions to persist in STEM disciplines (Meaders et al., 2020). Furthermore, these studies have not directly interrogated potential links between competition to a sense of belonging. Therefore, understanding minoritized students’ perceptions of competition is essential for developing noncompetitive, supportive classroom environments that can foster a sense of belonging and thereby help retain minoritized students in STEM.

The motivation for this study grew out of ongoing questions about what makes introductory STEM courses feel competitive to students, even when instructors attempt to reduce that perception. Specifically, instructors at the study university shared that students had repeatedly described STEM and the introductory biology course in particular as highly competitive. In response, instructors adjusted the grading scheme from a modified curve to a straight scale, aiming to reduce that perception. Although grading is frequently cited as a source of competition in higher education (Raymond, 2013; Hughes et al., 2014; Schneider and Hutt, 2023), this shift did not appear to alter how students experienced the course. This suggested that other elements of the course environment may also have been contributing to students’ sense of competition, and motivated our efforts to study competition in STEM.

In this study, we sought to understand how undergraduate students from racially minoritized and first-generation groups perceived and conceptualized competition in STEM classes. The ultimate goal of this work is to mitigate the detrimental impacts of competition on undergraduate students’ experiences in STEM classes, but before we can prevent negative outcomes, we need to fully understand what students perceive as competition. Thus, our study seeks to answer two questions: 1) How do students from minoritized groups perceive competition? 2) What is the impact of competition on these students’ sense of belonging?

Conceptual Framework

We used the theory of Opportunity Hoarding as a lens through which to analyze and contextualize our results. Opportunity Hoarding theory, as articulated by Tilly, addresses how inequality is maintained through a group's dominance over valuable resources (1997 and 2000). According to the theory, opportunity hoarding involves not only excluding certain groups from educational opportunities and professional advancement, but also strategically managing or controlling these resources to ensure they remain within a specific group (Tilly, 1997). The “in-group” refers to those who control or have access to resources, while the “out-group” refers to those who are excluded from or are disadvantaged in accessing the resources and opportunities. Importantly, opportunity hoarding does not require intentional exclusion or explicit beliefs of inferiority (Tilly, 2000), but rather can rely on subconscious hoarding and exclusion.

The theory explains that while systems can aim to uphold fairness by allocating resources based on ability and hard work, ultimately, systems can reinforce inequalities by overlooking differences in access to resources that impact the perceptions of individuals’ abilities and results of hard work. By extension, uneven distribution of resources or opportunities, often driven by conscious or subconscious hoarding of opportunities by the “in-group,” can lead to a sense of competition. In the context of education, students might perceive competition as competing for educational opportunities, such as grades, recognition, or academic support. However, if one group of students always loses this competition, this competition has become a foundation of inequity. Thus, Opportunity Hoarding theory provides a framework for understanding how controlling resources creates conditions that may lead to competitive behaviors and sustain inequality and inequities (Burley, 2002; Tilly, 2000).

The concept of opportunity hoarding has been explored in multiple educational contexts to describe how systemic barriers perpetuate inequities. Diamond and Lewis (2022) examined how institutions create and defend “white educational spaces” through opportunity hoarding. Riegle-Crumb and colleagues investigated racial/ethnic gaps in STEM degree persistence and found that Black and Latina/o students are more likely to exit STEM fields compared with their White peers, highlighting persistent inequalities observed in STEM fields (2019). Souto-Maior (2023) demonstrated that structural inequalities, such as racial differences in social class, can lead to opportunity hoarding in schools, even without intentional actions by White students. These studies collectively illustrate how the opportunity hoarding framework can provide a valuable perspective to understand the systemic barriers to resources and opportunities that eventually result in educational inequities.

Because exclusion is central to how opportunity hoarding operates, it can also produce negative affective consequences for those positioned in the out-group. For example, Walters (2001) defines opportunity hoarding as “behavior that reserves for one's own children the best possible educational opportunities,” emphasizing that “the inevitable flip side… is excluding others from those same good opportunities.” This framing reinforces that exclusion is not incidental but foundational to how opportunity hoarding operates. Such exclusion has consequences. Riegle-Crumb et al. (2019) applied the opportunity hoarding framework to explain racially minoritized students’ disproportionate attrition from STEM majors. They argue that “microaggressions and a relative lack of support and inclusion on the part of faculty and fellow classmates… are strongly implicated in the hoarding of STEM degrees among White students,” and explain the resulting feelings of exclusion. Therefore, although the psychological effects of opportunity hoarding have not been measured directly, feelings of exclusion are a likely outcome of being positioned in the out-group (Bernstein et al., 2010; Lewis and Diamond, 2015; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). Feelings of exclusion can be a precursor or trigger to diminished belonging (Walton and Cohen, 2007; Good et al., 2012). Therefore, affective experiences such as decreased sense of belonging and self-doubt are likely implications of opportunity hoarding in educational contexts.

In our study, we operationalize opportunity hoarding in the context of examining students’ perceptions of competition within STEM classes. Importantly, since none of the students we interviewed referred to the conscious or subconscious intentions of the in-group, our findings point to the fear of opportunity hoarding as a reason for fueling perceptions of in-class competition.

Positionality

As with all research, our individual identities and lived experiences shape the perspectives we brought to our study (Holmes, 2020). We made many choices in this study—from the selection of our sample to our analytic approach to what we present in this paper—that are affected by our identities. Recognizing that no research is free from bias, we offer this positionality statement to clarify some of the ways that our identities shaped our work.

As individuals that make up our author group, we have all experienced competition in education in various ways. In many respects, we have “won” these competitions—securing positions in research labs, postdoctoral and faculty roles, and contributing to publications. Our social identities and privileges within STEM have undoubtedly shaped not only our interpretations of students’ experiences but also the dynamics of the study itself, potentially influencing everything from the candor of participants to the themes we identified and present.

Our observations, experiences, and self-awareness of the privilege and power we hold within higher education inform our shared commitment to understanding and redressing inequities in undergraduate STEM education. Although we aim to amplify the voices of minoritized students by presenting themes that stay true to students’ experiences, we recognize that, even so, our perspectives inevitably influence how these themes are shaped.

S.T. is a cisgender, South Asian American woman who completed her education in Mumbai, India, before pursuing postsecondary studies in the United States. She grew up viewing competition as a natural part of education, based on her experiences in an educational system where competition was deeply embedded as a cultural norm. Her international background and perspective as a woman of color in STEM drive her to explore how cultural norms and systemic barriers shape learners’ motivation and persistence in science. In her teaching, S.T. aims to create inclusive environments that result in equitable outcomes by continually reflecting on her practices.

K.B. is a cisgender Greek-American woman who grew up in many different states in the United States. As a woman aspiring to go to medical school, she understands how competition in undergraduate STEM classes can create feelings of discouragement and anxiety. Her own experiences with competition motivated her to further explore how undergraduate students of various identities perceive competition in STEM. As a teaching assistant for underclassmen during her undergraduate education at the University of Washington, she encouraged collaboration amongst students to promote a noncompetitive environment and instill confidence in students that felt they did not belong in STEM. K.B. is currently working in the medical field and hopes to continue actively learning about how we can make STEM a more inclusive, noncompetitive field.

I.S.K is a South Asian, cisgender woman, born in India. She later moved to the United States during her early childhood years, before relocating to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, where she completed her elementary and secondary school. While conducting this research, I.S.K was an undergraduate student and research assistant at the University of Washington, Seattle. I.S.K's experience of growing up in small schools, where competition was not huge, to taking multiple STEM classes at the University of Washington, she witnessed how competitive pressures affected her sense of belonging and confidence. Having experienced this, she was intrigued to learn more about this issue and contribute to a non-competitive environment.

R.A.S. is a cisgender, White woman and a first-generation immigrant who grew up in Lisbon, Portugal, before moving to the United States in her late teens. She completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Washington, Seattle, where she was a teaching assistant for multiple courses. As both a teacher and a student, she has strived to provide an equitable and safe environment for all of her peers and students. Having taken many STEM courses, she has not only had first-hand experience with competition, but also played a role in supporting her peers and other undergraduates who were in the same position she once was in. Personally affected by competition in STEM, she was motivated to investigate this issue.

M.R is a cisgender, South Asian woman who grew up in India before moving to the United States in her early teenage years. While conducting this research, she was simultaneously pursuing her undergraduate degree in bioengineering and working as a research assistant at the University of Washington. She grew up in an environment where competition in an academic environment was not only a common theme but often seen as essential for success. M.R was drawn to this research because of these experiences, where she witnessed firsthand how such pressures could impact students’ well-being and sense of belonging. In her coding and data analysis, she approached the data with a reflective lens, conscious of how her own experiences with academic competition compared with those of other students. Using this background, she aims to explore diverse experiences and perspectives in academia.

E.J.T is a cisgender, currently able-bodied White woman who grew up in the US. Competition in STEM impacted her trajectory as an undergraduate student and was a contributing factor in her decision to drop out of college (she later completed her degree at the same institution). She is the first in her immediate family to complete graduate school, and she was raised with core values embedded in kindness and education. Since graduating from college, she has taught middle school, high school, and now college life science. In all classes she teaches she strives to create noncompetitive environments, and through her research, she is actively trying to understand competition and its impacts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study, Course Context, and Participants

Student experiences in introductory science courses are crucial as these courses significantly influence their decision to switch majors during the first or second year of college (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). For this reason, in our study, we collected data from students who were enrolled in a large introductory biology course. Sampling occurred at a public R1 university in the Pacific Northwest. Approximately 8000 undergraduate students were awarded with degrees during the academic year from 2022 to 2023, and 49% of students pursued STEM majors during that time (University of Washington [UW Fast Facts], 2023). The majority of students in the introductory biology class from which we sampled were either continuing-generation (71%), Asian (42%), and White (38%), or identified as women (65%) (see Supplemental Table S1).

Among the university's 112 majors, 57 are capacity-constrained, meaning that students have to meet additional requirements for entry (for example, minimum grade point, entrance application, etc.). The majority of capacity-constrained majors at the institution are in STEM disciplines (University of Washington, Admission to Majors, 2023; Biology, 2023). The Biology major is a capacity-constrained major with a minimum grade point requirement and application for enrollment into the major, though nearly everyone who applies to the major is admitted (personal communication with the advisors in the department).

The introductory biology course from which students were recruited for this study is the first of three required courses for the Biology major. The course sequences goes “from little to big” in that the first course introduces evolution, Mendelian genetics, biodiversity, and ecology (and subsequent courses introduce cellular, molecular, and developmental biology, and finally, physiology). The course enrolls between 500 and 1200 students, depending on the quarter, and is offered every quarter of the year (including summer; summer enrollment is less than 100). The course is required for many STEM majors on campus and fulfills a natural world distribution requirement for the university, thus almost 25% of the student body enrolls in the course. STEM-major applicants taking introductory biology typically concurrently enroll in introductory courses in chemistry, math, or physics.

The introductory biology course from which we sampled uses a straight scale grading structure, where grades are assigned based on fixed cutoffs rather than students’ performance relative to each other (Sadler, 2005). This approach gives every student the opportunity to earn maximum points without affecting other students’ grades. The course adopted this grading structure six full academic quarters (i.e., 1.5 years) before the sampling for this study.

Interview and Participants

We conducted semistructured interviews with a total of 25 students from two quarters of introductory biology: Fall 2022 and Winter 2023 (see interview protocol). Students from these two quarters of the introductory biology course were asked to fill out a survey administered in the 4th week of the 10-wk quarter. This survey asked about their experience in the class and requested demographic information, such as race, ethnicity and first-generation status. This survey was a class assignment, graded for participation (worth less than 1% of the total grade).

At the end of the survey, students were invited to indicate their interest in participating in interviews regarding competition in STEM classes. We were particularly interested in learning from participants who identified as first-generation or belonged to a racially marginalized group, including Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Native Alaskan, and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. We centered the experiences of students from these groups because these groups are both historically and currently under-represented in STEM nationally (Malcom and Feder, 2016) as well as locally in STEM classes at the institution where this study took place (Harris et al., 2020). Moreover, the attrition of women, first-generation, and racially minoritized students from STEM is less understood (Park et al., 2022; Costello et al., 2023), and our recommendations to mitigate competition will be most meaningful and effective if they are codeveloped collaboratively with these students.

Based on students’ responses to the demographic survey, we contacted interested students via email, prioritizing students with the identities listed above (see student demographics in Supplemental Table S2). The introductory biology class from which we sampled included ∼16% racially minoritized students (see demographic breakdown in Supplemental Table S1) and 29% first-generation students. Our study sample focused on perspectives of first-generation and racially minoritized students while maintaining a representative sample based on gender, comparable with the class demographics (Supplemental Tables S1 and S2). Importantly, the interviews intentionally probed both the introductory biology class in which students were currently enrolled as well as other classes students had experienced. Specifically, students were explicitly asked to reflect on other STEM courses when discussing what contributes to their sense of in-class competition.

Each student who participated in an interview was compensated for their participation with a $25 Amazon gift card. The University of Washington, Seattle, Human Subjects Division determined the work to be IRB exempt (STUDY00015789).

Data Collection and Analysis

We conducted 60-min semistructured Zoom interviews during the 6th, 7th or 8th week of the quarter in Fall 2022 and Winter 2023. As our focus was on competition in STEM classes, interview questions and salient topics included: students’ perceptions of STEM fields and STEM classes in terms of their competitiveness, what instructor and student behaviors signaled competition, factors that contribute to competition (e.g., course features like grading and exam structure), comparisons between STEM and non-STEM classroom environments, and students’ sense of belonging in STEM classes. Notably, we intentionally probed students to think about classes beyond the introductory biology course from which we sampled. As such, students referred to various classes that they had taken.

We used Human Audio Transcription Services (rev.com) to transcribe interviews verbatim and then primarily used inductive coding to understand the data. To preserve participant anonymity, interviewee names have been replaced with fictitious pseudonyms, such as “Inyene,” throughout the research findings. We used a name generator to randomly select chosen pseudonyms to match participants’ reported identities (Campbell, 2024; Supplemental Table S2). Based on principles outlined by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) our qualitative analysis involved three stages: 1) identification of themes, 2) development of a preliminary codebook, and 3) generation of theory based on thematic groupings of themes and subthemes. First, we analyzed a subset of interviews to identify themes, compared our analyses between the five coders, and discussed how they addressed our predictions. Second, we developed an emergent codebook by noting recurrent themes and creating code categories and subcategories among the interviews. Examples of emergent codes include “inconsistency in instructor behavior” and “beneficial for learning.” After we generated the codebook in this manner, authors S.T, K.B., I.K., M.R., and R.S. coded all student interviews. Two coders independently coded each student interview, while a third coder reviewed the codes to ensure that each application of a code aligned with the definition in the codebook. Additionally, the third coder offered a perspective, especially when the two coders were seeking consensus. All authors rotated through their roles as first, second, or third coder for any given transcript. There was a weekly meeting where we discussed any discrepancies in applying codes and discussed any excerpts and codes that required consensus. After all interviews were coded, we grouped the codes thematically and organized them to generate a theory. Figure 1 summarizes our study methods, theoretical framework, and our most important results.

FIGURE 1.

Our study uses the Theory of Opportunity Hoarding to explain how students perceive inequities when they say they experience competition in STEM learning environments. Specifically, racially minoritized and first-generation students name disparities in prior knowledge, access to resources, time outside of class, and content understanding as contributing to competitive experiences. Ultimately, students report that competition fractures their sense of belonging in STEM.

We acknowledge that combining data from two distinct populations of students, racially minoritized students and first-generation students, might be problematic, as it could imply that their experiences are homogeneous, not considering their unique and diverse backgrounds, needs, challenges, strengths, and desires. Our aim through this study, however, is to understand the variety and scope of competition as well as to highlight the common challenges faced by these students in competitive environments stemming from the broader systemic issues. Given the demographics of our sample, where 13 out of 25 students are first-generation, five are racially minoritized, and seven are both first-generation and racially minoritized, this study presents an initial effort to explore how competition is conceptualized by these students. Although the small sample size, lack of focus on identity-based differences, and demographic composition limit our ability to fully differentiate experiences, we have identified shared experiences and challenges across these groups as a valuable first step.

FINDINGS

Finding 1: Perceived Inequities Make STEM Classes Competitive

A consistent salient theme throughout the interviews was that perceived inequities make STEM classes competitive. In this section, we characterize our participants’ experiences as STEM students and the inequities they encountered that shaped the academic environment. Although our interview questions specifically asked about “competition,” students framed their responses in terms of inequitable access to resources and opportunities. We identified four main inequities that students discussed: 1) disparities in prior knowledge, 2) disparities in the ability to afford additional resources, 3) unequal access to time outside of class, and 4) differences in student understanding because of how the course was taught (Figure 1). Students saw these inequities as persistent underlying factors that created competitive environments in their STEM classes.

Inequities in Prior Knowledge

Students highlighted how disparities in prior knowledge fostered a competitive atmosphere in STEM classes, impacting both individual confidence and collaborative learning. Students with more prior knowledge were perceived to have an advantage, while other students felt at a disadvantage despite their effort in the class. Such a gap in prior knowledge contributed to a pervasive sense of competition within the classroom.

When asked what makes a STEM class feel competitive, Sidiki, a Black first-generation student, pointed to disparities in prior knowledge as a key factor. He described how differences in prior knowledge among students fed into his “sense of competition” by creating an uneven playing field.

“… you are also wondering… does that person know more than me?… Because at the end of the day, there's a certain class of students that are going to succeed, they have previous knowledge on the content, they had taken a lot of classes geared toward it. But you yourself, you may not have a lot of experience in these classes… And it puts this sense of competition, like, I'm not sure if I can get to where they're at…” ∼ Sidiki

Sidiki perceived his chances of success as compromised by a comparative lack of prior knowledge, fueling his sense of competition and seeding doubts about his potential. In Sidiki's reflection, without naming it as such, he identified an in-group of students who had prior knowledge (“certain class of students… that have previous knowledge of the content”), and an out-group of students who lacked that prior knowledge (“you may not have a lot of experience in these classes”). His sense of competition seemed to stem from a fear rooted in the gap between these groups. Whether intentional or not, the opportunity that was being hoarded, or that was inaccessible to many students, was the chance to have gained essential knowledge before the course, and Sidiki perceived that prior knowledge as a key advantage for the students who had it.

Other students echoed Sidiki's views that differences in prior knowledge contributed to a competitive atmosphere in STEM classes. Joshua, a Jewish first-generation student, commented on how disparities in prior knowledge created an advantage for some students, especially given the complexity of STEM subjects. He recognized that “some people might come [into class] knowing more than the other person, so they will have a leg up in that field.”  Elvira, a Hispanic/Latina student, echoed this sentiment, noting that competition did not arise from explicit expectations set by professors but from the internal pressure of feeling at a disadvantage compared with more knowledgeable peers. She expressed her concern by saying, “I already feel like I know less than everybody else, so I feel like I have to work harder to prove myself…”

The disparity in prior knowledge not only affected individual understanding but also shaped collaborations that could offer critical support to students. For example, when study groups were formed, students perceived that groups were composed of students who understand the material to similar degrees, thus maintaining the prior knowledge gaps between groups. In discussing the impact of being in competitive environments, Oscar, a White first-generation student, identified prior knowledge as a criterion by which students form homogeneous study groups, and this homogeneity exacerbated competition.

“Yeah, actually me and my friend were talking about this like last week, how there's kind of like a gap between the people that get it they just kind of find each other and float and kind of like do their own thing with their own study groups… then there are other people that want to get it but… maybe they didn't take AP Chemistry in high school or something like that… that makes things a little more competitive as far as STEM [classes go]…” ∼ Oscar

Oscar described how students who “get it… just kind of find each other” (the in-group) and formed study groups that reinforced their understanding and success. In contrast, students who were equally motivated but “maybe didn't take AP Chemistry in high school” (the out-group) were excluded from these groups, leaving them at a perceived disadvantage. Those without similar prior knowledge or experiences, such as exposure to AP courses or other preparatory programs, found it harder to gain access to these groups, which in turn limited their access to learning and deepened their disadvantage. Oscar's experience emphasizes how students observed their peers clustering with others who shared similar levels of prior knowledge, which “makes things a little more competitive.”

Overall, students who entered the class with greater prior knowledge (the in-group) were perceived to have an advantage, which made the class feel competitive. Specifically, this prior knowledge was seen as an asset for successfully navigating the course content. In contrast, those without this prior knowledge (out-group) felt disadvantaged, no matter how much effort they invested, which heightened the sense of competition. The disparity in prior knowledge fostered a competitive environment where success was perceived as contingent not just on effort or learning in the class, but on already having prior knowledge of the material. Given that instructors do not have control over their students’ prior knowledge, this becomes a creative concern for instructors when planning their courses (see “Considerations for Instructors” for suggestions).

Inequitable Access to Resources

Students described how inequities in access to resources and support contributed to their sense of competition in STEM classes. The resources they referred to included those perceived as essential for academic success, such as tutoring, paid test prep, and personal technology, all of which students perceived as giving advantages to those who can afford them.

Daniel described how unequal access to resources, such as paid tutors, gave some students, specifically those who could pay for out-of-class support, an advantage and contributed to his perceived sense of competition.

“…if you are in a situation where you have to fight harder to understand the same stuff that someone with a best tutor in the state that their parents paid for or something like that. If you're trying to reach that level A, it takes a lot of time. And so even if this class is not competitive [with regards to grading] or whatever, you can still see that… someone with more resources understands the material better… compared with someone who could have the same grade…” ∼ Daniel

Daniel perceived STEM competitiveness as shaped by disparities in access to resources like tutoring and time to learn the content, which he saw as creating inequitable outcomes among students. He identified an in-group of students with the means to afford resources (“someone with the best tutor in the state…”) and an out-group of students who lack these resources and must “fight harder to understand the same stuff.” According to Daniel, this gap allowed the in-group to learn and progress more quickly, intensifying the sense of competition and making the ability to afford such resources a critical component of success that remained inaccessible to many students.

Other students made similar remarks. In reflecting on aspects of her experience that promoted competition, Zaira, a Hispanic first-generation student, noted that differences in access to paid resources contributed to her sense of competition. Expressing how access to such resources gave certain students an advantage in managing their coursework, she said, “I struggled on the homework, but [other students] didn't have to struggle so much.” Zaira further explained that she had not known about certain paid resources other students used, stating, “I went [to] my discussion section and apparently other people have resources they pay for to help them with their homework.” This discovery surprised her, as access to these paid academic support tools allowed some students to complete assignments more easily, giving them a perceived advantage. Zaira's perspective also emphasizes that simply knowing about these additional resources is itself a form of access—one that can further compound inequities in students’ ability to succeed.

As a final example, Inyene, a Black, first-generation student, emphasized that access to resources goes beyond paid tutoring and test prep and includes a subtle hierarchy or a “class-type of system” based on students’ ability to afford the latest technology. This perceived hierarchy created an environment where students without the newest technology feared they were at a disadvantage.

“I would say competitive would be one of the words [to describe my class]… There's… this weird kind of [a] class type of system… in university. For example, there's people who have all their Apple products… I feel like people who just have androids… are looked down upon… because it's like, “You can't even afford to be on my level. You don't even have the technology to be at my level because you don't have this really super new iPad.” … some people don't even have the tools in order to be successful… If you think about it, some, not everybody can afford it.” ∼ Inyene

Inyene affirmed that differences in access to resources, like personal technology, made a class feel competitive. She described the class as competitive, especially when she saw some students with the latest devices (in-group), while other students used older technology (out-group). This suggests that students who lacked the financial means to afford these tools felt disadvantaged. Without resources, or with fewer resources, “some people don't even have the tools in order to be successful” academically, and these same students felt “looked down upon” socially. Therefore, the in-group enjoyed both academic and social advantages, reinforcing a sense of hierarchy over the out-group, who faced disadvantages for lacking these perceived essential tools.

Through all these reflections, students revealed that the competitive atmosphere arose not from directly vying for resources but from the perceived benefits the resources afforded. Those with access to high-quality tutoring, paid test prep, and up-to-date technology were perceived to be more prepared and better able to succeed, thereby creating a divide between students based on individual access to resources. The disparity in access to resources fostered a sense of competition as students without these resources felt they were at a disadvantage when trying to achieve academic success.

Inequities in Time Outside of Class

Students described how inequities in time outside of class contributed to a sense of competition. These disparities stemmed from factors such as commuting, work obligations, and hectic class schedules. As a result, students who could afford more time were able to access support tools like office hours and manage coursework, while others struggled to keep up.

One source of time inequity that contributed to students’ sense of competition was the advantage that on-campus students had over commuters. When talking about assignment structures or other course policies that contributed to competition, Zaira, a Hispanic first-generation student, highlighted the perception that students who lived on campus had more time to complete assignments than those who commuted or had work obligations.

“… Well, if you're thinking about so many assignments for students [who are] taking other STEM courses, people who have more time or the ability to commute back and forth from school, obviously, they live on campus so they can just go home and do work. But people who live at home or commute or work don't have the time to complete the assignments. I don't know how you explain it, but I understand having assignments help with your grade, [and] it makes sure you're on top of your work. But if you're having so much every single day, I think it just affects the stress of the students overall, or at least those who are [commuting] daily.

… I think having a lot of assignments promotes competition. I think it's not very evident and I think that if you analyze it does because people who have a lot more time on the hands are able to complete those assignments compared with those who aren't able to. For example, I have to do the [homework questions] all in one day because I don't have the time throughout the week. So I do it all in one day. So it means I have to go through all of the work in one day compared with somebody who can space out their time.” ∼ Zaira

Zaira perceived STEM coursework as a factor in the competitive nature of STEM classes due to the unequal amounts of time outside of class that students had to complete assignments. She identified an in-group of students with more time, such as those who live on campus and can “just go home and do work,” and an out-group of students with less time, such as those who “live at home, commute, or work” and “don't have the time to complete the assignments.” For Zaira, a student in the out-group, the burden of multiple out-of-class assignments meant fitting all tasks into a single day. Therefore, Zaira saw time as a resource that was unequally available to all students and made the class feel competitive.

Time inequities also affected the quality of work students were able to produce. Sayori, an Asian first-generation student, emphasized that the variance in time outside class led to competition, as students’ ability to complete assignments thoroughly depended on the amount of time they had available outside of class.

“Just because it's not curved doesn't mean it's not competitive. You can still feel the tension between everyone. We all do not have time to thoroughly go through all the readings before class. Some people have work, some people have other obligations and responsibilities to do. Some people would just have to skim through [readings]… It's competing on: if you have time on your hand to do work before the class.” ∼Sayori

Students in the in-group had the time to complete readings and assignments more thoroughly, while those in the out-group, with limited time, had to skim through readings, which put them at a disadvantage.

Finally, time inequities influenced students’ ability to access additional support, reinforcing their sense of competition. Palmira, a Hispanic first-generation student in the military, highlighted a divide rooted in time inequities between students who could attend office hours and fully utilize available out-of-class resources and students who could not access those supports and resources due to limited time in their schedules. Palmira gave voice to the out-group, explaining that her limited study hours made it impossible to attend office hours: “…[my class schedule] doesn't give me time to go into their office hours that they have for us.” Limited time outside of class restricted the out-group's access to office hours that fueled competition by creating an uneven learning environment where only those with more available time in their schedules were able to fully benefit from essential support.

In the context of elaborating on how fairness in instructor-mediated exam preparation is linked to competition, Giovana emphasized that students with more time for instructor-mediated support, such as office hours, gained an academic advantage.

“Yeah. So with that I think it's sort of unfair education for all the students, because let's say a student had all the opportunities to go meet with the professors, stay after class and go to quiz sections, everything. They had the opportunity to do all that, then they were able to ask specific questions… But that doesn't mean that every student gets that. I think for it to be fair, it's something that a professor can provide for the students. Not students to students, because if the professor were to go over the specific questions or wording from exams, that means everyone who went to lecture would get that information. And it's not directed toward the people who have the ability to go to office hours…. Yeah, I think that's very unfair, because some students, they can't. So then they don't get [that information] … In the exam, they don't really understand how the switch happened. And they do worse. And the people who went to office hours and were able to discuss with the professor and get their answers corrected, they're like, “Oh, yeah. I get this.” But that doesn't mean that the professor taught that in lecture. So I think course content and exam preparation should be focused during lecture time.” ∼ Giovana

Giovana perceived STEM as competitive due to inequities in students’ time outside of class, which gave certain students an academic advantage that felt out of reach for others. Without naming them as such, she described an in-group of students with more time and an out-group of students who could not attend office hours and other academic supports. Students in the in-group were able to “meet with professors, stay after class, and go to quiz sections” while students in the out-group missed critical information covered during those out-of-class opportunities. Giovana saw this access to professor support as a valuable opportunity reserved for the in-group with more time and flexible schedules.

Overall, these observations suggest that competition in STEM arises from inequities in time outside of class, creating advantages for students with more time (an in-group) over those with less time (an out-group). Students pointed to time constraints as barriers to accessing support systems like office hours or TA help, which fueled their sense of competition. Those with more time could better prepare for exams and meet course demands, reinforcing disparities in outcomes and success among students.

Inequities in Student Understanding

Students suggested that differences in their conceptual understanding within STEM classes, shaped by factors like instructors’ teaching and the pace of teaching, led to a sense of competition. Regardless of the factors students identified as contributing to differences in understanding, they acknowledged that merely recognizing inequities in understanding among peers could make a class feel more competitive. When some students could grasp the material easily, while others struggled, it created an atmosphere where those who understood had a perceived advantage, and this made a STEM class feel competitive.

For instance, Sidiki elaborated on how his understanding due to how an instructor set up their class and taught influenced his sense of competition in the class.

“What makes a class competitive? I feel like a lot of times, it's the content and how it's taught… And just the environment the professor creates, and how he or she seeks to make sure that students understand the material. In what ways that she invests the most of her time trying to teach. So I feel like through that it can lead to some students not really keeping up, and other students used to individual learning or things like that. So they're able to just succeed in that environment. But I think it just honestly is the content and how it's taught… If the teachers [are] not helping me to succeed, how can I succeed by myself? And then not everybody's great at that. So I think that's where it creates that sense of competition. When I understand it, do you understand it? You know what I mean? Oh, maybe if I understand it, you don't understand it, that's an advantage for me, because I can learn by myself.” ∼Sidiki

Sidiki perceived STEM as competitive due to inequities in students’ understanding of the content, which fueled a sense of competition in the classroom. He described an in-group of students that were “used to individual learning,” who could keep up with and understand the material on their own. In contrast, the out-group consisted of “some students not really keeping up,” who struggled to grasp the content. Later in the interview, Sidiki shared that instructors who facilitated environments where students could “collaborate easily,” rather than instructors who promoted “individual learning,” contributed to differences in conceptual understanding. Sidiki viewed the ability to fully grasp the content as a valuable advantage, one that was effectively restricted to those students who were adept at succeeding without relying on the instructor's guidance. This dynamic reinforced competition, as the in-group's understanding and independence positioned them to maintain their advantage, while the out-group faced barriers to keep up.

Another aspect that shaped inequities in understanding was the pace of instruction, especially when classes moved forward before everyone understood the material. For instance, when asked whether interactions with TAs and/or instructors make STEM classes competitive, Talatu, a Black woman, emphasized how differences in understanding, shaped by TA or instructor teaching methods, could significantly impact their sense of competition in a STEM class.

…if [TA office hours were] more classroom style and one person was understanding it more than someone else, that could make it competitive. But if it's more one-on-one, then it wouldn't make it competitive. Or if it was more classroom style, but if one person understood it and then they moved on, that would make it competitive compared with if the TA was working to make sure everyone understood it, then that wouldn't make it competitive I feel like.” ∼ Talatu

Talatu explained that when the class moved on before everyone understood the topic, it made the environment competitive, particularly if TAs (or presumably instructors) did not “make sure everyone understood.” She suggested that accommodating only the in-group's pace in this way reinforced their advantage and made the out-group feel left behind. Talatu's observation shows how students perceived inequities in understanding as directly tied to their sense of competition.

Students ultimately sensed that gaps in understanding, shaped by teaching methods and pacing, drove feelings of competition. Students in the in-group, who understood the material quickly, were perceived to succeed, while those in the out-group, despite equal effort, struggled to understand the material. This divide was reinforced by teaching practices that catered to the in-group's pace and left the out-group at a disadvantage, increasing students’ sense of competition. Success in STEM classes became closely tied to how quickly and independently students could understand the material, which further intensified the competitive environment.

Finding 2. Perceived Inequities Impede Students’ Sense of Belonging

Competitive STEM environments have detrimental consequences for students, particularly on students’ sense of belonging. Although identifying inequities that caused competition (Finding 1), students discussed their resulting self-doubt, demotivation, and negative affect, including a fear of not achieving their goals. Specifically, perceived inequities, whether related to prior knowledge, access to resources, time outside of class, or students’ understanding, were described as invariably negatively impacting students’ sense of belonging in STEM classes. This interplay between inequities and competition contributes to an atmosphere within STEM education that leaves some students feeling like they don't belong.

Competition Leaves Students with a Fractured Sense of Belonging in STEM

The perception of in-group/out-group differences contributed to a sense of competition, amplifying feelings of inadequacy among students who identified as part of the out-group. For example, Sidiki, a student who named inequities in prior knowledge as contributing to the perception of competition, described how seeing peers with more prior knowledge fostered a sense of isolation and self-doubt. He explained that this perceived gap in prior knowledge “automatically puts [students] in a box,” emphasizing how being in a restrictive box limited his potential for success in class.

“…you look around here, and you see all these students in the beginning of the classes, raising their hand, responding without fear, all these things, it automatically puts you in a box knowing that, okay, I'm not where they're at…

And I put this sense of competition, like… I'm not sure if I can get to where they're at. Or I'm not sure if I can even pass the class… the students based on what they see and hear, it can just put them in a box of, okay, I belong here. And then for me to get there, I have to work hard by myself. Because everybody already got there. They're good, they know it. I have to figure it out by myself.” ∼ Sidiki

Furthermore, Sidiki articulated internal struggles associated with doubts about belonging in STEM classes, noting how seeing peers with apparent ease and confidence made him feel like he “isn't where they're at” and must “figure it out by [himself].” Therefore, Sidiki described his internal struggles in STEM, doubting whether he belonged: “I'm not sure if I can get to where they're at.”

Later in the interview, Sidiki expanded on his sense of uncertainty about belonging, acknowledging the potential to fit in while grappling with feelings of inadequacy.

“To be really honest with you, I feel like, if I look at how I'm doing, my first initial thought is, I don't belong. But then a part of me knows that I can belong. I know I can belong. Honestly, I feel like I know I can belong, but I wouldn't necessarily say that I feel like I do belong… I [equate] belonging with doing well… [if] I would have been asked a particular thing about that, I would [know the] way it should be… So how can you feel comfortable if you are not doing well in the class?” ∼ Sidiki

For Sidiki, a sense of belonging in STEM was closely connected to academic performance, with one's place in class shaped by their ability to excel. Perceived inequities created a competitive environment that compromised students’ confidence in their ability to succeed and sowed doubts about belonging in STEM. He reflected that “if I look at how I'm doing… My first initial thought is, I don't belong,” suggesting that the connection between academic performance and feeling like one belongs was part of a mindset centered on achievement. In such an environment, students might have assessed their sense of belonging based on their chance to excel academically, relative to others, heightening a sense of competition.

Mary, a White first-generation student, reiterated this connection between understanding and sense of belonging as she explained that consistently grasping the content and performing well on exams, labs, and readiness questions made her feel prepared and reinforced her sense of belonging in the course.

What makes me feel like I do belong in the course and that I am maybe prepared for the information being taught… I'm consistently getting things correct and performing well on exams and labs and readiness questions, and everything. So I think that high performance is making me feel as though I'm understanding everything in this course, [which is] a good fit for me. ∼ Mary

High performance and a clear understanding of the material made Mary feel aligned with those who grasped the course content easily (in-group), while challenges in comprehension and performance could have led to a sense of misalignment with those who struggled with the material (out-group).

Another student, Giovana, elaborated on how teaching, particularly pace and depth of content delivery (inequities in student understanding), affected her perceptions of fit within academic environments. Giovana opened up about the challenges she faced in understanding and keeping up in fast-paced STEM classes, which led her to doubt whether she belonged in the class (“I don't fit”).

“I think the speed of a class, or how fast the content goes by, makes me feel like I don't fit. Because for [this one class], it goes by super quick and there's so much to learn, less time to practice, so I just feel like I'm not cut out for that environment. But for other classes where it's not less content, but more discussions, I feel more intuitive. Yeah, and mostly [that thought] has definitely helped where I'm like, “Oh, yeah, I like the topic, I'm going to keep taking it because I belong here.” ∼ Giovana

She identified how fast-paced teaching methods compromised her understanding, aligning her with those who struggled to keep up (out-group). Conversely, in classes with more discussion-based formats, where understanding came more easily, she perceived herself as part of those who grasped the material more readily (in-group), which fostered a greater sense of belonging.

Students explained that inequities in understanding could impact students’ sense of belonging within STEM disciplines. Students’ perceptions of their affiliation with either the in-group or out-group, based on their understanding of class content due to factors such as instructor teaching methods (e.g., fast-paced versus discussion-format), shaped their comfort and sense of belonging in STEM classes.

Finally, Inyene vividly illustrated how the competitive environment in one class, compounded by perceived inequities in resources, fostered feelings of exclusion and undermined the sense of belonging for students like her, who are passionate about STEM.

“If you think about it, not everybody can afford it. It's already so expensive just to go and get a college education… there's this weird little hierarchy thing… everyone's trying to prove that they're so great… and that those who don't have all of these things just feel left out or feel like they don't belong. I feel like I don't belong in the [STEM] class, even though I'm so excited about [the content], … I love [the content, and] I'm wanting to major in it for a reason… But being in this class has made me and a lot of my friends […] question it, which is so unfortunate. I'm over here questioning if I really want to go forward with this, even though I know I want to, but because of the [competitive] environment… It's just unfortunate.” ∼ Inyene

Inyene's reflection calls attention to how financial barriers and disparities in access to resources contributed to feelings of exclusion and the questioning of one's belonging in STEM classes. Inyene shared, “I feel like I don't belong in the [STEM] class,” due to financial constraints and perceived hierarchies. Despite Inyene's passion for the content and plans to major in it, being part of an out-group that lacked financial resources and faced academic hierarchies fostered doubt and a sense of not belonging. Inyene expressed the impact that inequities in resources can have on students’ confidence and sense of belonging in STEM fields.

Overall, the interplay between inequities and a sense of belonging not only shaped student perspectives but also contributed to the overall competitive atmosphere within STEM education. Inequities in prior knowledge, access to resources, and understanding of content created competitive environments that profoundly impacted students’ sense of belonging in STEM. These inequities, compounded by teaching practices and systemic barriers, led students to perceive themselves as part of in-groups or out-groups, influencing their sense of competition. Students who perceived themselves to be in an out-group often experienced exclusion and self-doubt in environments they assessed as competitive. This doubt ultimately caused many to question their overall belonging in STEM environments.

DISCUSSION

To retain racially minoritized and first-generation students in STEM, it is critical to address the culture of competition that resides in STEM learning spaces. As a useful step toward this goal, we have characterized the reasons why racially minoritized and first-generation students’ name inequities as contributing to competition in introductory STEM classes. One significant takeaway from this study is that when students say a class is competitive, they perceive inequities.

Competition in the Context of Prior Studies

Past research has limited the perception of competition to grading structures, the extent of collaborative learning opportunities, and competitive interactions between individual students (Hughes et al., 2014). We build on these findings by confirming that students name these factors as contributing to a sense of competition as well, but in our interviews, competition extended well beyond grades, collaborations, and interactions with peers. Students identified perceived inequities in prior knowledge, inequities in access to resources, inequities in time outside of class, and inequities in access to learning as contributing to a competitive environment in their STEM classes. Ultimately, when these students perceived inequities as the driver of competition, it left them with a fractured sense of belonging.

Though never before named as “competition,” our results fit into the literature on academic performance and traditionally defined success. For example, prior knowledge often plays a crucial role in student performance in college. Several studies have shown that students with more extensive prior knowledge achieve better outcomes, and when teaching methods do not accommodate these differences in prior knowledge, STEM classes become further inequitable spaces (Felder and Brent, 2005; Harris et al., 2020; Karagiannopoulou and Entwistle, 2019). For students, this feels like competition. Weatherton and Schussler (2021), among others, extend this observation and contend that in higher education, we should broaden our definition of success to better incorporate what students themselves define as success. For example, traditionally “success” is defined as quantitative metrics like grades, exam scores and grades, but O'Shea and Delahunty (2018) showed that for first-generation students, success often included persistence and perseverance: “I'm still here, I'm still going.” Similarly, Oh and Kim (2016) report that some students define success relative to “making their families proud” or “helping those in their communities.” If our STEM learning spaces were designed with these metrics of success in mind, perhaps they would feel less competitive.

Competition and Opportunity Hoarding

The theory of opportunity hoarding aids our understanding of the relationship between inequities and competition within STEM learning environments (Figure 1). Opportunity hoarding refers to a system in which certain individuals (in-group) maintain exclusive access to opportunities, privileges, and advantages, while others (out-group) face restricted access, perpetuating inequities and reinforcing opportunity gaps. The in-group typically aims to preserve its advantages by marginalizing the out-group, either consciously or subconsciously (Tilly, 1997; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019; Tilly, 2000). The racially minoritized and first-generation students we interviewed perceive in-groups and out-groups in STEM learning environments, albeit not naming it as such, and the uneven distribution of opportunities between groups shapes students’ perceptions of competition.

For example, students’ recognition of group disparities in differential access to resources such as tutoring, paid test preparation, and personal technology led to a heightened perception of competition. Moreover, students’ descriptions of inequities in access to resources perceived as essential for academic success illustrate how opportunity hoarding operates; the in-group, whether consciously or subconsciously, maintains exclusive access to these resources, sustaining their advantage, excluding out-group members and reinforcing systemic inequities. It follows, therefore, that students in the in-group, who have access to these resources, may perceive less intense competition. Our sampling design did not allow us to test this hypothesis, though it is worth testing.

Our data support the body of work suggesting that navigating educational systems molded by opportunity hoarding can lead out-group students to internalize structural exclusion, resulting in diminished belonging and self-doubt (Lewis and Diamond, 2015; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). As students recounted uncertainty about their place in STEM, their reflections emerged not only in response to academic demands but also to their structural positioning as members of an out-group. These experiences were often tied to disparities in access to resources, prior preparation, or student understanding—all of which are shaped by systemic advantage. Although students did not explicitly name the opportunity hoarding framework, their accounts illustrate how structural exclusion may manifest psychologically, thus reinforcing feelings of misalignment with the in-group.

Competition and Sense of Belonging

Previous studies have suggested that competition influences racially minoritized and first-generation students’ motivation, persistence in STEM majors, and sense of belonging in STEM learning environments (Johnson and Ahlgren, 1976; Strenta et al., 1994; Niederle and Vesterlund, 2007; Posselt and Lipson, 2016; Canning et al., 2020; Imad et al., 2023). Our results are in concordance with this literature in that students in our study specifically articulated that the competition due to perceived inequities in STEM classes prompted questions of their place in class and casted doubts about their belonging in STEM. Importantly, our finding that inequity-driven competition influences students’ sense of belonging contributes to an explanation for the disproportionate attrition of racially minoritized and first-generation students from STEM majors (Malcom and Feder, 2016; Forrest et al., 2018). The gravity of the disproportionate attrition of minoritized students is emphasized by findings such as those from Malcom and Feder, which show that less than a third of racially minoritized students who enter STEM fields ultimately graduate with STEM degrees (2016). Such disparities in outcomes highlight how systemic barriers, including inequity-driven competition, significantly hinder efforts to build a diverse and equitable STEM community.

Considerations for Instructors

The biggest conclusion from this work is that an inequitable class is a competitive class. Minoritized students identified different kinds of inequities that make STEM classes competitive. As instructors, we can take steps to address inequities to work toward classes feeling less competitive for students. Here, we offer suggestions inspired by the literature and our interviews with students that address the specific inequities students identified as contributing to a sense of competition in their STEM classes.

In this section, our intention is to contextualize existing recommendations from the literature in relation to the concerns students identified in our study. Although students did not always name specific solutions, their reflections point to features of courses that contribute to a sense of competition. Therefore, the suggestions for instructors are not meant to be comprehensive, but instead illustrate a few ways instructors might begin addressing these inequities. Importantly, we hope that these considerations speak to the inequities students shared and offer a starting point for future research on how to make STEM feel less competitive.

Disparities in Prior Knowledge

To address disparities in prior knowledge, instructors can align instruction, practice, and assessment through backward design (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005). This will afford students practice on assessment-aligned skills and content and will communicate to students on which areas they should focus. In addition, instructors could identify common areas of disparate prior knowledge by using baseline data or early formative assessments (Salehi et al., 2019a; Salehi et al., 2020). Finally, to ensure students have access to the necessary background knowledge before class, instructors can assign short preclass videos with guiding questions or use class time to model how to approach unfamiliar tasks—for example, by walking through sample problems or explaining reasoning processes aloud (Gross et al., 2015; Tanner, 2012).

In addition, instructors could consider encouraging all students to reflect on gaps in knowledge as a metacognitive skill to better improve their learning outcomes. For instance, instructors could normalize these differences by positioning existing knowledge as a valid starting point for learning to address Sidiki's concern that, “There's a certain class of students that are going to succeed… they have previous knowledge… you may not…,” (Murphy et al., 2021; Canning et al., 2024). Reinforcing the strategies students already use—such as seeking out resources or working with peers—can further promote inclusion by recognizing these practices as forms of navigational and social capital, respectively (Yosso, 2005).

Disparities in Resources

To mitigate disparities in access to resources, instructors can 1) reflect on assumptions about what students can afford or access outside of class, 2) reduce financial burdens by relying on low-cost or freely available curricular materials, and 3) make support and resources transparent and more accessible. First, reflecting on access-related assumptions can help instructors avoid unintentionally designing courses around what only some students can reasonably access. For instance, assignments that require stable internet or specific software may work well for some students but present barriers for others. Because these needs are not always visible, instructors might consider using a beginning-of-term survey to check in about students’ access to materials, time, and technology. An open-ended question—such as asking whether there are any access needs students would like the instructor to know about—can help surface constraints early and support more responsive course design (Rose and Meyer, 2002).

Instructors can also help by reducing cost-related barriers where possible—for example, by selecting open-access textbooks, free preparatory materials, or alternatives to expensive tools like iPads (Fisher, 2018). As Inyene put it, “… some people don't even have the tools in order to be successful… some, not everybody can afford it” admitting how unequal access can shape students’ sense of success in class. Finally, making these resources clearly visible—such as outlining low-cost options, free materials, or support services like office hours or tutoring—can help ensure students don't bear the extra burden of finding them on their own (Bassett, 2023).

Disparities in Time

To reduce the impact of time disparities, instructors can focus on: 1) decreasing the amount of time students need to spend on work outside of class, and 2) designing grading structures that recognize different ways students engage with course content. First, it can be helpful to consider how much time students are spending on homework and whether that time demand is equitable. Although frequent, lower-stakes assignments are often viewed as inclusive because they reduce reliance on high-stakes exams (Eddy and Hogan, 2014), they also assume students have time outside of class to complete them. As Zaira brought up, “a lot of assignments promote competition,” reminding us that more work does not always mean more support. One way to reduce this burden is by shifting more practice and support into class time. For example, instructors can use class sessions for guided problem solving, questions, or concept review, rather than assigning that work as homework. Active learning strategies provide a structure for doing this and have been shown to reduce inequities in STEM outcomes (Wenderoth et al., 2007; Freeman et al., 2014; Theobald et al., 2020). Giovana reflected this view, stating, “So I think course content and exam preparation should be focused during lecture time.” Scheduling structured office hours during class time—such as using one session per week for check-ins or review—can also make support more accessible for students with less flexibility (Andrade et al., 2020; Morton et al., 2023; Woods et al., 2023).

Second, instructors can address time-related disparities through grading design. Specifications grading, for instance, gives students multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency, which reduces the pressure of rigid deadlines and one-shot assessments (Nilson and Stanny, 2023). Likewise, grading schemes that balance exam and non-exam components make space for students to engage with the course in different ways and still be recognized for their effort and understanding (Freeman et al., 2020).

Disparities in Understanding

To address inequities in understanding, instructors can focus on 1) scaffolding content, 2) high-intensity active learning, and 3) building in structures that allow for students to process and apply course content over time. Scaffolding approaches such as modeling how to approach complex tasks, sequencing material into manageable steps, and gradually increasing complexity have been shown to support the development of conceptual understanding (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; van de Pol et al., 2010). In addition, high-intensity active learning provides frequent opportunities for students to practice course content and skills, which has been shown to reduce inequities in student outcomes (Theobald et al., 2020). In parallel, classroom structures like in-class problem solving, TA office hours, and assignments that allow for feedback and revision can provide students with space to revisit ideas and clarify misunderstandings with guidance (Chi et al., 2008; Tanner, 2012). Such practices and support structures not only recognize that students’ understanding develops at different rates, but also offer ways to reduce the pressure of high-stakes performance assessments. Talatu emphasized the impact of such efforts, noting, “If the TA was working to make sure everyone understood it, then that wouldn't make it competitive,” acknowledging how an instructor's efforts to ensure understanding can shape whether students feel they're falling behind.

Note for Instructors

Instructor efforts to address different forms of inequity in a single course can surface tensions between equity goals—like how to support students with different levels of preparation, reduce time and resource burdens, and still create space for everyone to keep up and engage. For instance, supporting students with less prior knowledge—such as by offering preclass materials—can create additional demands on time, which may be a barrier for students managing heavy responsibilities outside of class (Tanner, 2012; Salehi et al., 2019b). In-class active learning may relieve some of that burden, but it often assumes students arrive with a certain level of preparation (Cooper et al., 2017). These kinds of tradeoffs are a regular part of course design. Rather than attempting to resolve all tensions at once, acknowledging them and making small, intentional adjustments in response can support more equitable and sustainable classroom environments, even when no single change is sufficient (Gold and Kinloch, 2021).

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations of this study that are worth noting. First, our study draws on data from a single introductory biology course at one R1 university. Although we tried to probe students to think across classroom contexts, the extent to which the results transfer to different classes or institutions is unknown.

Second, we grouped first-generation and racially minoritized students into a single analytic category. This approach allowed us to identify structural barriers shared across these groups, but likely obscured important differences in how students experience those barriers. To better understand such differences, we would be very interested in disaggregating data by students’ demographic identity, such as first-generation and continuing-generation students, or by racial and ethnic background, to identify how students’ perceptions of competition the patterns may vary across specific subgroups.

Third, no member of the analysis team identified as a first-generation college student or as belonging to a racially minoritized group. This reflects a gap in lived experience between the identities of the research team and those of the participants in our study. Future analyses could greatly benefit from including collaborators or consulting with student advisory boards with relevant backgrounds (for example, in King et al., 2023).

In future studies, it will be informative to sample across different STEM classes, departments, and even institutions to understand how and whether perceptions of competition vary across contexts. Similarly, it may be worth interviewing students who have prior knowledge, have access to resources, have considerable time outside of class, and who understand the material, to test the hypothesis that, as the in-group, they experience less competition. In addition, although interviews offer rich perspectives, in future research, it would be beneficial to complement qualitative findings with quantitative results to further test the generalizability of the results presented here.

CONCLUSION

Our study reveals the intricate interplay between competition, perceived inequities, and students’ sense of belonging in STEM learning environments. By centering the voices of racially minoritized and first-generation students, we have uncovered how perceptions of inequities, stemming from disparities in prior knowledge, access to resources, opportunities outside of class, and understanding, contribute to a heightened sense of competition and ultimately feelings of exclusion. Our findings build on previous critiques of and calls to ameliorate systematic barriers in STEM education. In addition, this work deepens our understanding of competition and its detrimental impact on minoritized students, highlighting the need to dismantle systemic practices that unfairly limit access to opportunities and create environments where all students can thrive in STEM.