Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Free tuition at US public Universities?

I'd also argue that a soft economy also drives up demand for the "elite" schools. Picking some random numbers there is a huge difference between the scenario of 80% of people with degree x getting a good job and 8% doing so. It is no longer about just having the piece of paper to get you in a door, the name on the top and (as aquinas highlighted) the network behind it become all that more important to even find the door.

JonLaw - I totally agree with the view of purchasing a "letters patent". I went to an local university and graduated having made money in the process. I had friends that went to the more expensive top school and graduated with the same degree hugely in debt. In the end (at that time) our degrees opened the exact same doors.

To the original post on free tuition, the Veblen(Joneses) thingies would keep status seekers away from the free schools. A profit-motive variant would have people seek out the magic 100% ride at moneyed private schools (the more it costs, the more I make on a free ride?) Later entrance to workforce isn't just for a soft job market it also pays to the frontend (or backend?) for extended retirement age and additional thimble bailing for social security. Intriguing.

Pretending all that stuff doesn't exist... What would be the proposed characteristics a STEM graduate studies bound freshman should base their undergraduate school selection upon?

As an engineer I'd consider the following -
1) find a school with a co-op or internship program - look carefully at how hard it is to get into and percentage of students successfully placed (the program only helps if YOU get a job each work term). I can't say enough good things about these types of programs to gain valuable job experience and while earning money to ease the debt. I can't remember the last time we even interviewed a new grad that don't have coop or internship experience (I'm in Canada - I assume it is similar in the U.S.).
2) class sizes - do they pack 500 freshman into lectures the first year or only 100? Large lectures aren't necessarily the end of the world as long as there are smaller tutorials and/or accessible TA's and profs. Large lectures with limited office hours can mean you're on your own to figure things out. Often 1st year classes are huge and then it gets smaller as people drop out or specialize. If they are still putting hundreds in a lecture in 4th year I would be wary.
3) specialties offered and when you have to pick your specialty - I did two years of common engineering and then 2 years in a specialty (civil, chem, mech, electrical, etc). Other schools make you pick 1st year. Advantages to delaying - you get to have a taste of everything and see what interests you and what you're good at. Disadvantages - you have to take courses like Organic Chem even if you are going into Electrical (I think I'm still slightly scarred...). If you do have to pick going in or early, how hard is it to switch?
4) jobs, jobs, jobs - companies tend to recruit from the same subset of schools. Many large companies hire from all over but smaller companies tend to look at a couple of schools and tend to focus on closer schools. If you're thinking of going into a smaller specialized field then it can be advantageous to know where they recruit from and/or geographically where there are lots of companies in that field.
5) team work - not sure how to put this in words but having a tight knit group to survive the experience was invaluable. Our faculty had an engineering library where many of the 1st and 2nd years would gather (after 2nd you had a homeroom). The first year in particular it was crucial to find people to work with. For most of us it was the first time we were challenged and had to study. Team work was essential to getting through the volume of work with good grades in the end (and it was much more enjoyable). Profs weren't always around to answer questions but that room was usually packed and you could usually find someone who could answer it (and then turn around and help them with something else in return). Many of my friends outside of engineering were jealous of the team work vs the every person for themselves mentality that was prevalent in other faculties.

That's all I can think of for now. I'm sure others will have more.

Thanks for the informative post. I wonder how many internships are open to students who are below age 18 and who may not have driver's licenses. I think many gifted students can handle the academic work of college at a young age, but they may be less prepared for or disqualified from internships and summer jobs. This is a more important consideration for students who plan to work immediately after college than for students who plan to attend graduate school.

Good question...Legally I'm guessing we can't ask about age in an interview and I've never been in a situation where I've thought it was required info. If the person has the maturity to handle university then they likely would be considered regardless of age. I'm in high tech and many years ago we did have a 16 year old working in my group for a work term without issue. The kid could code up a storm and fit in pretty well. At some point there are probably child labour laws that would have to be observed but I'm assuming we aren't talking about kids that young.

The chems and mechs at my university did generally end up working in the oil & gas industry and you did have to have a drivers licence for many of those jobs and relocate to a small town for the work term. That was in a province where you can get your full drivers license at 16. There were some placements at the university or at various head offices in the city that would be a better option for a younger student. Some of the guys out in the field could be a bit rough around the edges (I was 19 my first work term at a gas plant, there was another female student and then ~70 guys that were all over 30, it was an interesting experience...).

ETA - to add context to my previous post an engineering internship up here is one 16 month long paid work term between 3rd and 4th year (2 summers+fall& winter term = 16 months) The other option is co-op which spreads the work terms out generally in 4 month chunks alternating with school terms. My school did internship and I earned 80% of what I earned as a new grad and returned to finish 4th year with a full time job lined up.

I concur with Chay's list of attributes on the S side of STEM, as well-- intimate instructional settings, a peer group, and later specialization are all important components in developing a truly well-educated individual in physics, chemistry, biological or earth sciences. IMO, a robust research/internship experience is also essential.


BTW, even as a HS student, there were quite a number of internship postings that DD was ineligible for by virtue of her age-- about 40-50% specified age 16 or up, and some required a valid driver's license (which in our state almost certainly means being age 17).

With many of those postings, the reasons were twofold- regulatory guidelines are quite different for "children" than for "adults" or "college students" when you are considering a setting involving radiological, chemical, or biological hazards. Secondly, insurance coverage may specify a lower age limit.

Her hard work isn't affected by someone else. Her hard work is being diminished by Oregon in that they are proposing giving away what was previously given only by merit.

Which is a conclusion that comes from a worldview that not everyone shares. Does make these sorts of conversations prone to crosstalk.

So in that worldview a tuition waiver is, in and of itself, a Veblen good; that is, the exclusivity IS the apparent value of the good.



You're right, ZS; I do not share that particular perspective. If my DD's college (within the same state) were to offer 1000 "presidential" scholarships (full tuition) annually instead of the 65 that it does offer, I would feel no differently about the relative value of that award. The true value in my mind is the ability to graduate debt-free, and to focus exclusively on one's STUDIES, without such concern about finances. It might permit an unpaid summer internship, or for a student to study abroad.

What others receive or do not doesn't seem relevant to any of that. In fact, a great many less "able" students will no doubt receive far more "need-based" aid than will my DD. Should I be mad about that??


I anticipate additionally that the "hard work" referenced in order to obtain this particular merit award will pay dividends during post-secondary studies, even if they seem to have been "excessive" in the here and now... again, not really understanding this point-- has such performance come at some substantial (and now regretted?) opportunity cost??

Otherwise, the work ethic and habits formed will more than make up for any loss of prestige if such a benefit were to be extended to those slightly less... illustrious, shall we say. In other words, if you're the top of the top, then you're still going to be there when it matters in two years.

It's not loss of prestige.

It's the embitterment that comes from have put a significant amount of effort in to acquire something that is then given away.

Granted, I consider college and law school to be a substantial opportunity cost. I do wish I had those eight years of my life back.