In life, nothing is equal. Everyone knows that some fields of study will lead to better career prospects and higher salaries than others and your choice of major should always include some contemplation of what you will do with your degree once you graduate. But should colleges charge you more for a degree in a well paid field?
The University of California system is proposing to do just that, charge engineering and business majors more than their fellow English or chemistry majors. Their reasoning is two fold, one those professors are more expensive to have on staff. The university has to compete for talent with the private sector and pay private sector salaries. The second reason is the graduate’s salary potential, in general engineers make more than their English major counterparts. Does that mean engineering majors should pay more?
I see this as a bad precedent, for a few reasons:
Does that Mean my Degree is Free?
There are fields of study which have academic interest, but are not economically useful. Universities are focused on the preservation and dissemination of knowledge, even if no one will ever make a dime off of that knowledge. If we are basing the price of a degree on its economic usefulness, will someone studying an obscure field with little practical application get their degree for free? What about degrees that fall somewhere in the middle, will they get half priced tuition? And what does this mean for the future of universities, will they start pushing the pricey degrees at the expense of other, less lucrative ones?
Discouraging Critical Skills
The US has a shortage of high tech workers, including engineers. Engineering is not seen as a glamorous or exciting career path. Not to mention that most American students loathe the years of math that are required. Yet the US needs more engineers to face the challenges of globalization and an increasingly tech driven world. Discouraging students from engineering is the last thing we should be doing, charging them more is certain to drive students away. In fact I would argue we should be subsidizing those students more, not charging them more. It is an example of short term pain, for long term gain. Compare 4 years of college to the 40+ years you spend as a taxpayer and worker.
A Degree Does not Equal a Job
There was a recent case of a college graduate suing her college because she could not get a job in her chosen field. Such a suit is ludicrous; a degree does not guarantee you’ll get a job let alone a job in your particular field. Often graduates will take a different career path after college, either their interests have changed or they took the only opportunity they could find. If we base the price of that degree on potential starting salary, will we refund those fees when the career does not materialize?
Perhaps I’m Biased
For the record, I’m an engineer and perhaps I’m taking this proposal a little too personally. Maybe to others this idea makes perfect sense. But if this policy existed back when I was in college, there would be one less engineer in the world today. Like most young people I wasn’t certain what I wanted in life or who I wanted to be. I took a gamble when I chose my course of study, I know I would have chosen something else if choosing engineering meant choosing higher tuition. I see this plan as shortsighted, sure it helps with revenue in the immediate future. But at what price to our technological skills and to the value our universities provide as repositories of knowledge.
Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed this post consider subscribing for updates.
Feed: pfblogs.org
PF Blogroll
Posts
14 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly with your points. The higher price tag will just scare some people off, or bar others from being able to even think about becoming an engineer or going into tech.
With that being said, I do see their point. But it is also saying that some degrees are worth more than others, which is something I don't agree with.
I agree with your point. If anything, the government should invest some money in subsidizing the higher costs of those programs because it benefits us in the international market to have more tech and science grads. We'd still be paying for it, but I'd argue that that subsidy would be a much better investment of tax dollars than a lot of the programs out there currently.
Wouldn't that also put those schools at a competitive disadvantage? It would attract less students because they are not paying more than they would at competing school? It seems rather silly considering cost is one of the major factors to deciding where to do.
I don't thimk so unless they use a lot more professor time for the courses.
Jon DeFlumeri Jr.
I wonder what they would charge students who enter college with an "undecided" major? This is yet another sign that California is under major economic distress. I give points to "thinking out of the box" but this ain't the way to go.
Honestly, I feel bad that my degree (chemistry) it actually one of THE MOST expensive majors possible... (not counting faculty salary) especially if you're at a school where there is a heavy emphasis on lab techniques.
However, I think that you'll get people choosing majors because of the "cheapness" or the "value" of that major rather than their skillset or desire. And I'm not sure that is a good thing, nor do I think it is a good idea to charge two different people different amounts for similar degrees at the same university.
What I DO think is fair however is charging people extra for classes where more is required by the school financially. For instance, a lab fee per lab course. Technically you are charging more for the class, however you're charging for the use of equipment, reagents, ect - not for overinflated salaries of the professors.
The cost of an engineering degree isn't what you pay in tuition - it's the difficulty of the curriculum. The reason engineering jobs pay more is because it's a really demanding course of study, and a demanding day-to-day job. Not everyone can do it!
Of course, I'm incapable of being impartial since I majored in engineering. Just another reason why everyone should go to USC! ;-)
Arizona State University has been doing that for a while. And it leads to all sorts of strange unfairness.
For example, if you're enrolled in the quasifraudulent "Master of Liberal Studies" program, you pay $300 per credit hour more than graduate students in other liberal arts programs. Thus when you take an elective in, say, the history department, you may find yourself sitting next to an M.A. or Ph.D. student in history who has paid $900 less for the privilege of taking the course.
Pressure has been put on all departments to jack it to the students with these "surcharges."
My son would like to get an MBA. At this time in his life he can't afford to pursue that goal out of state. But the ASU charges MBA students tens of thousands of dollars above and beyond the regular tuition. Given the way the gutted programs, the overstuffed classrooms, and sub-basement levels of morale among faculty and staff, one wonders why anyone would want subject him or herself to any degree program there...much less pay $20,000 to $40,000 extra for the privilege.
BTW, trust me: with a few notable exceptions brought to the campus for the purpose of publicity and prestige, most faculty members decisively do NOT have "overinflated salaries."
Arizona State University has been doing that for a while. And it leads to all sorts of strange unfairness.
For example, if you're enrolled in the quasifraudulent "Master of Liberal Studies" program, you pay $300 per credit hour more than graduate students in other liberal arts programs. Thus when you take an elective in, say, the history department, you may find yourself sitting next to an M.A. or Ph.D. student in history who has paid $900 less for the privilege of taking the course.
Pressure has been put on all departments to jack it to the students with these "surcharges."
My son would like to get an MBA. At this time in his life he can't afford to pursue that goal out of state. But ASU charges MBA students tens of thousands of dollars above and beyond the regular tuition. Given the way the gutted programs, the overstuffed classrooms, and sub-basement levels of morale among faculty and staff, one wonders why anyone would want subject him or herself to any degree program there...much less pay $20,000 to $40,000 extra for the privilege.
BTW, trust me: with a few notable exceptions brought to the campus for the purpose of publicity and prestige, most faculty members decisively do NOT have "overinflated salaries."
Your universities don't already do this? We've had this in NZ for as long as I can remember. Arts degrees are the cheapest, medicine the most expensive. Like, fees for a year of medicine is about three years of Arts. I don't really see a problem with it - it's commensurate with future income expectations. But then again, here ANYONE can get a student loan to cover ALL their tuition fees from the government. Anybody can go to university as long as they have the grades.
If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, there's a little more to her then not being able to get a job.
She's suing one of those business colleges. You know the ones that do essentially promise you a job. They operate in a predatory manner. Sure we could say she should have been smarter, but not everyone is. Doesn't mean places like that should be able to promise the world and deliver a worthless degree.
Yipe! How did I manage to upload a duplicate comment? Sorry...don't know how that happened!
At R. May: It should be noted that some legitimate public universities will claim various programs lead to jobs, when your chance of getting a job with that degree or certificate are about nil.
I'm about to review a program (yes: a Ph.D. in English leads you to spend days writing reviews for no pay!) of a "professional" writing program that is essentially identical to the one I designed for my soon-to-be former employer. To my horror, after it was up and running the department started telling undergraduate students that a certificate from our program would qualify them for jobs in journalism--that in the job market, a bachelor's degree in some interdisciplinary degree like "integrative studies" (unrecognizable at many graduate schools and unheard of in most editorial offices) plus the writing certificate would outrank a bachelor's in journalism from the Walter Cronkite School, a nationally prominent program. Worse, they actually told students that with our little certificate they could make a living as freelance writers! One young woman who fell for that line was a single mother of twin boys.
This new program, at a school in the Pacific Northwest, is about to make similar claims.
I was a freelance writer for years, around stints as editor at a city magazine and at the largest regional monthly in the country. And I can assure you, the people who make anything like a living at freelance writing are those who already have a substantial track record as working journalists. Otherwise, the way you make a living as a freelance writer is to have a spouse who can support you.
In higher education these days, it's strictly caveat emptor.
Umm my school does this ... they charge tuition by what college you are in - theres a college of liberal arts and sciences, engineering , art and design , business ,etc. LAS is the cheapest , and art and architecture is the most expensive.
That's just dumb. How do they deal with undeclared majors and people who have one major, but take classes from another department? How do they charge for general requirements and the math classes for those engineers. Do they pay as an engineer or a math major? The least they could do is charge by department of the class rather than major. That at least makes for some consistency and jives with their argument about engineer instructors costing more.
Post a Comment