The high attrition rate of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) majors is a main concern in education. A number of factors may account for students' departure, among which preparedness for STEM learning in college is a crucial determinant. Extensive work has been done to enhance students' preparedness through efforts such as bridge programs, where academic and social support is provided to minoritized students for the rigors of college; however, discrepancies exist regarding how such programs may impact students' cognitive and affective readiness. This article discusses a study in which the author explored the effects of a bridge program with a focus on four key aspects of readiness: self-efficacy, mathematics anxiety, epistemic beliefs, and metacognitive skills. Thirty-nine first-year college students who intended to pursue a STEM degree enrolled in the bridge program (21 males and 18 females, Mage = 17.80, SDage = 0.66), and all of them consented to participate in this study. A questionnaire booklet consisting of 86 items was developed based on existing literature. Results revealed that the relationships between self-efficacy, math anxiety, epistemic beliefs, and metacognitive skills varied by discipline. Math and physics self-efficacy related to different aspects of metacognitive skills: while those with higher critical thinking skills tended to have higher physics self-efficacy, abilities in metacognitive self-regulation was only significantly correlated with math self-efficacy. When it came to epistemic beliefs, students who believed that learning takes place in a quick manner tended to have lower self-efficacy in both math and physics, but only those who held that knowledge is simple were more likely to report lower physics self-efficacy. Despite the important role of math anxiety in STEM learning, it was found to be related only to self-efficacy in math rather than physics. Participation in the bridge program greatly contributed to reduced math anxiety. Yet, unexpectedly, throughout the program, participants experienced significant decreases in physics self-efficacy with no apparent change in math self-efficacy, which may have been due to disciplinary differences in the pedagogy of the program.