Plenty of engineering students at top universities have jobs (not just internships).
Time management is key.
As someone who hires their own interns and Jr eningeers, it's shocking how few applicants have ANY prior work experience.
I had a 15-20hr/wk internship, and worked retail on weekends.
However, I often turned in homework that only outlined the knowns, unknowns, drew a diagram, listed equations that were applicable, and that was it. 50% credit for 30min of work.
That speaks more for the simplicity of the courses of your university more than against my position. Are you really Swedish? I'm going to assume not. Engineering classes at Swedish universities typically don't give points that add up to a grade cutoff point. You might get an average grade of all projects and finals. The final exam is typically 5 hours long with 5-10 very difficult questions. In my CS program we had to work 60+ hours minimum a week, and classes often had 70%+ failure rates. This is not an environment where you can get a second job, and to my knowledge, none of my classmates or anyone I knew did so, except during summers.
Heavily impacted engineering program at one of the top University of California campuses.
It spoke for the grading structure of the homework and did not apply to all courses.
Exams and projects were graded much more rigorously and there was a similar drop out/fail rate as you describe.
Not all engineering courses required homework for a grade. Often homework was only worth 5%, exams and projects the remainder. However, weekly problem sets easily consumed 10-15hrs per course, 3-4 courses per quarter.
Professors left it to the student to prove their understanding of coursework through exams. I often suspected due to the high rate of plagerism on homework (copying peers or access to solution guides).
Edit: don't get me wrong, I never had free time as a student. Every free moment outside of class was consumed by studying, working, eating or sleeping. I occasionally skipped lectures to buy free time.
It all came down to risk assessment which is a valuable skill to be learned for industry.
Time management I learned in school has paid off tremendously in my career and is something I seek more than a minimum GPA threshold in my interns and Jr. Eng's.
nonsense. I typically worked at least 30 hrs a week while a full time engineering student. There were some semesters that I was TA'ing 15 or so hours per week and working another 20-30. Honestly I did better then because I was forced to focus on time management.
EDIT: I should add that a lot of this was by necessity because of American college costs...but I look at it as a long term benefit for me personally.
I totally agree with all of those points, I was just providing some anec-data that it does happen.
I paid my tuition almost entirely through co-ops (6th month internships) and then worked while in school to pay my day to day bills. I was also very lucky to have a safety net from my parents if I needed it, although I didn't.
Having the "living and supportive family safety net" is definitely under-appreciated as an advantage here in the US. Many who have it don't even realize what an advantage it is.
American undergraduate classes are typically easier in my experience,. At the universities I went to (University of Washington and KTH) the Swedish undergraduate classes were more like the graduate classes in my experience. When I say 60+ hours a week I mean it. Who in their right mind works that much and gets a second job? And even if you could that doesn't mean that most people can.
As an example: in the engineering programs of KTH, typically half of the students don't make it through the first year. Many classes has a 70%+ failure rate.
> Its common here in the US to have a part time job to pay for your expenses. Is it not the case in sweden?
It's not particularly common, no. You might work a month or two during the summer breaks, perhaps.
As mentioned, tuition itself is free, but students still need to pay basic living costs. In order to allow students to focus on their studies, students receive financial aid towards these costs while studying. Pretty much everybody is covered for this aid. Part of it is "free" (i.e., a grant that you get every month, which you do not need to pay back), and a second part is a loan, which needs to be payed back later. You can choose yourself whether you'd like to avail of the "loan" part, and for how much (up to an upper limit). The loan has pretty good terms; you have several decades to pay it off (if you wish to take that long), at low interest rates (it used to be ~2% a few years ago, and is currently 0.6%).
This is available for non-Swedish citizens studying in Sweden as well, I believe.
But they have a choice, they can live with parents till graduating or till they get a descent job. If they want to have no debts they have a choice. If they choose to move - that's their own choice.
Yes but if enough people make a bad choice -- taking out student loans backed by the government that they will be unable to pay back -- then everyone is affected by their choices.
I wish this article were better written, but it makes some interesting points. I think the headline title is a bit of click-bait, though, since the author ultimately concludes that the Swedish method of financing higher education works in the context of the broader social goals the programs are trying to achieve.
Yes, I have no idea where they got the "high price" thing from. Here in Sweden you get paid to study at the university (~$350/month for 9 months if studying full time). On top of that you can choose to take a highly beneficial (i.e. better than banks) loan of ~$850/month to cover for expenses like rent, etc. Many choose to take the loan because it's worth it.
I think the article makes a point you are missing: early emancipation drives baby-making and family unit formation, which is one of the biggest sociological problems nowadays. This is the cause of student's debt, as they don't live off their parents. The clickbait title misses the thesis completely.
In my circle of friends in the US - where we were from lower middle class families, didn't live at home past 19, didn't get any college tuition help from our families (there was none to give) and worked the entire time we were in school, still taking on large amounts of debt, none of us had a baby below 30, and for most closer to 35.
In the reverse, kids that didn't leave home after high school (and seemed ill prepared for the shock of the real world) seemed to have children much younger, often while or shortly after attending community college, living with their parents or just down the street.
My experience is highly anecdotal (and maybe stereotype-enforcing) and I would think that it differs depending on where you're from as well (I'm from the Northeast). But it's rather the opposite of this take-away.
Agreed. I skimmed over it and reached the same conclusion. I upvoted it anyway so it could get more comments and I could come back and get any other insights from the scary smart HN community!
there is no high price in free education.
it is that certan people are scared if others get education like they are scared if africans have sex there will be no more food for them.
God takes away the grace from small hearted blood thirsty puritan children that produce war crimes around the world so they become degenarte fucktards once they grow up that together with other malicious actors want to take education from others and do Kain's work hoping with lunatic hope
In short: while there is no tuition, you often have to travel far (extremely few people per square kilometer) to get to your school of choice, causing almost everyone to move out, incurring high costs.
1. College is not free. It is paid for by parents/grandparents/relatives/friends of the end consumer through very high taxes. It's really a marketing trick - kinda like how these startups call something 'sharing (economy)', when in fact people are trading, not sharing. If the college wasn't labeled "free" and financed through high taxation, then parents/grandparents/relatives/friends would have to pay it anyway if the end consumer wants to go. So, they are paying whether the college is labeled as "free" or not (either through high taxes or directly).
2. The fact that college is labeled as "free", for the end consumer, makes making bad decisions easier. So, you will see a lot of dumb people who are bad at math, physics, computer science, chemistry, trades etc. going to these "free" colleges to study some worthless bullcrap like sociology, psychology, journalism, economics, gender studies, philosophy etc. That way, they will waste a lot of tax dollars and what do taxpayers get in return? Nothing. They get arrogant and entitled dummies who might become socialists/communists/feminists/feel_the_bern and bitch about nonsense and how the world is unfair, when in fact they are the parasites. You'll see some of them becoming 'diversity officers' or government bureaucrats sucking even more tax dollars.
You are assuming that most people are "stupid" and therefore not qualified to study at college. That reeks of highly stratified society like the USA is.
I guess nordic coutries just consider that most people are good enough for high education and high education should be able to teach all these people. And nordic countries tend to ace it; they are at the top of all the "human capital quality" ratings.
No, no... I didn't write that most people are stupid (where did you read that?). I wrote that there are certain people who, when given the opportunity to study something for free, will pick really bad majors, like sociology, anthropology etc. Then, those people will have a hard time finding productive employment and some of them might even join the bloated public sector and suck even more tax dollars. The existence of those people doesn't benefit society. Also, they will be heavily politically indoctrinated in leftist ideologies(socialism, communism, modern feminism) that promote wealth redistribution. Why is that appealing to sociology/anthropology majors? Because they are incompetent parasites who don't participate in production chain of anything they consume. So, they attach themselves to ideologies that promote wealth distribution from producers to parasites, all disguised as feminism/anti-oppression/progressivism etc.
I definitely understand your concern, but in my opinion benefits for society outweight costs, and the leftist-leaning of modern society should be fixed not in University but in different places (direct democracy anyone?)
psychology is a quack science about boxing in stereotyped people
social sciences is basically a field waiting to start existing once neurology is done mapping the human brains (yes, there is not only one, those things described as diseases are just part of the species).
But anthropology, how is that not a solid field? It has a clear cut topic, it has ongoing discussions and has brought us evidence backed up theory's like evolution.
The irony is none the less, that something like a john doe who majored in sociology blogging about the basic income might be more useful in the long run then a john doe working in a steel mill, waiting for a robot to replace him.
Disclaimer: Im in robotics, but ventured into a lot of other fields out of pure interest.
TL,DR - Conclusion: If it feels right - its usually wrong, or has a thousand edge cases.
I like to think that some of them will use that free education to develop cures for diseases, cheaper sources of energy, faster computers, etc.
I think about my fellow people the way I think about immigration... neither inherently good nor inherently bad for a society. If an immigrant is a brilliant physicist, it's a plus, whereas if an immigrant is a drug lord, it's a minus.
I'd rather live in a society surrounded by educated people, even if some of them choose a flakey major, or don't agree with all my views. That the people who get a "free education" also benefit from it themselves is just an added bonus.
> It's really a marketing trick - kinda like how these startups call something 'sharing (economy)', when in fact people are trading, not sharing.
What is the use in assuming that anyone who has come to a conclusion other than your own has had the wool pulled over their eyes? No self-respecting Swede believes that university is 'free' in the sense you mean it; the costs are palpable to all taxpayers. The argument in favor of 'free' higher education—that is, education for which the costs are borne collectively, rather than by individual students who are presumed not to have funding to match their abilities—typically runs that a better and more widely educated country is a more productive country, and that students of higher education will as a body more than pay back the money given them in the form of schooling. What's more, they will pay their costs forward, offering the same opportunities for succeeding generations.
You argue against this belief, after misrepresenting its proponents as people 'tricked' into thinking that no money has changed hands. That showed poor faith—something that is discouraged on this site—but, I'll move on. You insist that students given a leg up are more likely to squander their chances and to become parasitic, taking more than they put in. But you've given absolutely no evidence for this. Your 'reality check' is nothing more than supposition. Please direct us to numbers that indicate that Swedes are more likely to take degrees which you deem 'worthless,' and less likely to take STEM degrees or study a trade, than countries without 'free' education. Perhaps compare these figures to the US (you're clearly American, as shown by your line about the fervor surrounding Bernie Sanders among Swedish undergraduates). The US has quite high post-secondary tuition, even at its public universities, so if you're right in your thinking there should be far fewer 'parasites' there.
On what grounds do you speak about the left-leaning faculty in the Swedish university system? I certainly have no first- or second-hand experience that I could counter your claims with, but I suspect you have none by which to make them.
In general, a system of 'free' education is at least intended to give each generation as clean a sheet as possible. People may be self-made, but their children are not. 'Free' education provides (better) opportunities for those willing to put in the effort and do the work, regardless of their parents' abilities to land them in a good situation. No system rewards work and only work absolutely; but this is one attempt to do so, and it behooves anyone who wants to engage in actual conversation (as, for instance, on an online forum) to address it as such.
eh, Sorry but how is that related to college being free or not. As far as i remember its very expensive in the US and the effects you described still appear.
It's true that Sweden/Finland don't do quite as well in this area as places like Denmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_Denmark), Germany, or France, all of which supply are fairly generous with living cost grants for students.
Compared to US students, though, they're doing great.
37 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadIts common here in the US to have a part time job to pay for your expenses. Is it not the case in sweden?
Time management is key.
As someone who hires their own interns and Jr eningeers, it's shocking how few applicants have ANY prior work experience.
I had a 15-20hr/wk internship, and worked retail on weekends.
However, I often turned in homework that only outlined the knowns, unknowns, drew a diagram, listed equations that were applicable, and that was it. 50% credit for 30min of work.
That speaks more for the simplicity of the courses of your university more than against my position. Are you really Swedish? I'm going to assume not. Engineering classes at Swedish universities typically don't give points that add up to a grade cutoff point. You might get an average grade of all projects and finals. The final exam is typically 5 hours long with 5-10 very difficult questions. In my CS program we had to work 60+ hours minimum a week, and classes often had 70%+ failure rates. This is not an environment where you can get a second job, and to my knowledge, none of my classmates or anyone I knew did so, except during summers.
It spoke for the grading structure of the homework and did not apply to all courses.
Exams and projects were graded much more rigorously and there was a similar drop out/fail rate as you describe.
Not all engineering courses required homework for a grade. Often homework was only worth 5%, exams and projects the remainder. However, weekly problem sets easily consumed 10-15hrs per course, 3-4 courses per quarter.
Professors left it to the student to prove their understanding of coursework through exams. I often suspected due to the high rate of plagerism on homework (copying peers or access to solution guides).
Edit: don't get me wrong, I never had free time as a student. Every free moment outside of class was consumed by studying, working, eating or sleeping. I occasionally skipped lectures to buy free time.
It all came down to risk assessment which is a valuable skill to be learned for industry.
Time management I learned in school has paid off tremendously in my career and is something I seek more than a minimum GPA threshold in my interns and Jr. Eng's.
EDIT: I should add that a lot of this was by necessity because of American college costs...but I look at it as a long term benefit for me personally.
I paid my tuition almost entirely through co-ops (6th month internships) and then worked while in school to pay my day to day bills. I was also very lucky to have a safety net from my parents if I needed it, although I didn't.
As an example: in the engineering programs of KTH, typically half of the students don't make it through the first year. Many classes has a 70%+ failure rate.
It's not particularly common, no. You might work a month or two during the summer breaks, perhaps.
As mentioned, tuition itself is free, but students still need to pay basic living costs. In order to allow students to focus on their studies, students receive financial aid towards these costs while studying. Pretty much everybody is covered for this aid. Part of it is "free" (i.e., a grant that you get every month, which you do not need to pay back), and a second part is a loan, which needs to be payed back later. You can choose yourself whether you'd like to avail of the "loan" part, and for how much (up to an upper limit). The loan has pretty good terms; you have several decades to pay it off (if you wish to take that long), at low interest rates (it used to be ~2% a few years ago, and is currently 0.6%).
This is available for non-Swedish citizens studying in Sweden as well, I believe.
There's a bit more information at http://www.csn.se/en/2.1034/2.1036/2.1037/2.1038/1.9267
- University is free in Sweden.
- Sweden has a high cost of living.
- Young people in Southern Europe are more likely to live at home, though the cause of this isn't clear.
The title and start of this article sound like the author has some sort of agenda to promote, but there's so little substance that I still can't tell.
In the reverse, kids that didn't leave home after high school (and seemed ill prepared for the shock of the real world) seemed to have children much younger, often while or shortly after attending community college, living with their parents or just down the street.
My experience is highly anecdotal (and maybe stereotype-enforcing) and I would think that it differs depending on where you're from as well (I'm from the Northeast). But it's rather the opposite of this take-away.
Those things aren't free in places where there is college tuition either.
2. The fact that college is labeled as "free", for the end consumer, makes making bad decisions easier. So, you will see a lot of dumb people who are bad at math, physics, computer science, chemistry, trades etc. going to these "free" colleges to study some worthless bullcrap like sociology, psychology, journalism, economics, gender studies, philosophy etc. That way, they will waste a lot of tax dollars and what do taxpayers get in return? Nothing. They get arrogant and entitled dummies who might become socialists/communists/feminists/feel_the_bern and bitch about nonsense and how the world is unfair, when in fact they are the parasites. You'll see some of them becoming 'diversity officers' or government bureaucrats sucking even more tax dollars.
I guess nordic coutries just consider that most people are good enough for high education and high education should be able to teach all these people. And nordic countries tend to ace it; they are at the top of all the "human capital quality" ratings.
But anthropology, how is that not a solid field? It has a clear cut topic, it has ongoing discussions and has brought us evidence backed up theory's like evolution.
The irony is none the less, that something like a john doe who majored in sociology blogging about the basic income might be more useful in the long run then a john doe working in a steel mill, waiting for a robot to replace him.
Disclaimer: Im in robotics, but ventured into a lot of other fields out of pure interest. TL,DR - Conclusion: If it feels right - its usually wrong, or has a thousand edge cases.
I think about my fellow people the way I think about immigration... neither inherently good nor inherently bad for a society. If an immigrant is a brilliant physicist, it's a plus, whereas if an immigrant is a drug lord, it's a minus.
I'd rather live in a society surrounded by educated people, even if some of them choose a flakey major, or don't agree with all my views. That the people who get a "free education" also benefit from it themselves is just an added bonus.
What is the use in assuming that anyone who has come to a conclusion other than your own has had the wool pulled over their eyes? No self-respecting Swede believes that university is 'free' in the sense you mean it; the costs are palpable to all taxpayers. The argument in favor of 'free' higher education—that is, education for which the costs are borne collectively, rather than by individual students who are presumed not to have funding to match their abilities—typically runs that a better and more widely educated country is a more productive country, and that students of higher education will as a body more than pay back the money given them in the form of schooling. What's more, they will pay their costs forward, offering the same opportunities for succeeding generations.
You argue against this belief, after misrepresenting its proponents as people 'tricked' into thinking that no money has changed hands. That showed poor faith—something that is discouraged on this site—but, I'll move on. You insist that students given a leg up are more likely to squander their chances and to become parasitic, taking more than they put in. But you've given absolutely no evidence for this. Your 'reality check' is nothing more than supposition. Please direct us to numbers that indicate that Swedes are more likely to take degrees which you deem 'worthless,' and less likely to take STEM degrees or study a trade, than countries without 'free' education. Perhaps compare these figures to the US (you're clearly American, as shown by your line about the fervor surrounding Bernie Sanders among Swedish undergraduates). The US has quite high post-secondary tuition, even at its public universities, so if you're right in your thinking there should be far fewer 'parasites' there.
On what grounds do you speak about the left-leaning faculty in the Swedish university system? I certainly have no first- or second-hand experience that I could counter your claims with, but I suspect you have none by which to make them.
In general, a system of 'free' education is at least intended to give each generation as clean a sheet as possible. People may be self-made, but their children are not. 'Free' education provides (better) opportunities for those willing to put in the effort and do the work, regardless of their parents' abilities to land them in a good situation. No system rewards work and only work absolutely; but this is one attempt to do so, and it behooves anyone who wants to engage in actual conversation (as, for instance, on an online forum) to address it as such.
Compared to US students, though, they're doing great.