Can a Merit-Based Scholarship Program Increase Science and Engineering Baccalaureates?

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the following question: To what extent would a nationally competitive scholarship program increase science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) degree awards to our “best and brightest”? This inquiry is prompted by a 2006 report of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” which proposed a national STEM scholarship program to improve United States competitiveness. Using the Department of Education National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS-88), high school graduates from the class of 1992 who would potentially win such a scholarship were identified using ACT/SAT/AP test scores, grade point averages (GPA) and class standing, high school classes completed, and science fair participation. NELS-88 college transcript data indicated a lower bound estimate of between 60% to 80% of students likely to win the merit scholarships are already completing STEM degrees.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelman

(1999). Answers in a tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor's degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education

American Institute of Physics. (2006). High school physics enrollment growth by level of course. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/winter2006a.pdf

College Board. (1996). 1996 college bound seniors: A profile of SAT program test takers. Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/archived/1996

College Board. (2005). 2005 college bound seniors: Total group profile report. Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2005/reports.html

Dynarski

(2004). The new merit aid. In Hoxby

(Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 63–97. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Fiorito

Dauffenbach

R. C.

(1982). Market and non-market influences on curriculum choice by college students. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36, 103–114

Herzog

(2005). Measuring determinants of student return vs. dropouts/stopouts vs. transfer: A first-to-second year analysis of new freshman. Research in Higher Education, 46, 883–928

Leslie

L. L.

Oaxaca

R. L.

(1991). Scientist and engineer supply and demand. Tucson: University of Arizona

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345

10.

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

11.

Office of Admission Research, University of Texas. (2001). Developing a concordance between ACT assessment and the SAT1. Austin: University of Texas

12.

Reis

S. M.

Park

(2001). Gender differences in high-achieving students in math and science. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 52–73

13.

Seymour

Hewitt

N. M.

(1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

14.

Singell

L. D.

Jr. (2003). Come stay awhile: Does financial aid effect retention conditioned on enrollment at a large public university? Economics of Education Review, 23, 459–471

15.

Tai

R. H.

Liu

C. Q.

Maltese

A. V.

Fan

(2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144

16.

Xie

Shauman

K. A.

(2003). Women in science career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press