Abstract
- Adelman, C. (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, S. (2004). The new merit aid. In C. 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, J., & Dauffenbach, R. C. (1982). Market and non-market influences on curriculum choice by college students. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36, 103–114.
- Herzog, S. (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, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.
- 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.
- Office of Admission Research, University of Texas. (2001). Developing a concordance between ACT assessment and the SAT1. Austin: University of Texas.
- Reis, S. M., & Park, S. (2001). Gender differences in high-achieving students in math and science. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 52–73.
- Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
- 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.
- Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A.V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.
- Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. ( 2003). Women in science career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Volume 31
- Issue 3
- Publication Date: Spring 2008
- Page Number(s): 322-337
- DOI: 10.4219/jeg-2008-766
Can a Merit-Based Scholarship Program Increase Science and Engineering Baccalaureates?
Joe G. Baker and Michael G. Finn
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.
Cart Summary
You have 16 item(s) in your cart.
Last item you added is
Notes From the Editor’s Desk.