Compounding Disadvantage: Auditing Intersectional Bias in LLM-Generated Explanations Across Indian and American STEM Education

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly deployed in STEM education for personalized instruction and feedback across institutions in high- and low-income countries. These systems are designed to adapt content to student needs, but whether they adapt based on demonstrated ability or demographic signals remains untested at scale. Here we establish that LLM-generated STEM content systematically disadvantages marginalized student profiles across two cultural contexts, with the gap between the most privileged and most marginalized profiles reaching 2.55 grade levels. We audited four LLMs (Qwen 2.5-32B-Instruct, GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, GPT-OSS 20B) using synthetic profiles crossing dimensions specific to Indian education (caste, medium of instruction, college tier) and American education (race, HBCU attendance, school type), alongside income, gender, and disability, across ranking and generation tasks with FDR-corrected significance testing and SHAP feature attribution. Income produces significant effects across every model and context, medium of instruction drives the largest single effect in the Indian context, and disability status triggers simpler explanations. Effects compound non-additively: marginalization across multiple dimensions produces gaps larger than any single dimension predicts, and biases persist within elite institutions. Bias is consistent across all four architectures and persists through model selection, making intersectional, cross-cultural auditing a structural requirement before deployment.