More and more colleges are starting to employ what is called "differential tuition." That means that studying some disciplines will cost you more than others. One reason for this is to discourage too many students from a particular course of study. For example, at the University of Tennessee, the number of business students has doubled in the past few years, while the school's budget and the number of faculty has stayed the same. Still, students want a business degree because it will pay off better in the long run than a degree in philosophy. That is another reason college can charge more: because the result is worth it. But is it fair?
But what happens to students who can only afford a degree in a cheaper field? Should public universities set prices according to the laws of supply and demand? Or will higher tuition for, say, engineers only discourage students from becoming the workers we will need in the future? Link
(Image credit: Flickr user gadgetdude)
Universities have to pay "competitive salaries to retain" professors who are in demand elsewhere, says The Cavalier Daily of the University of Virginia. The "market value" of business, engineering, and nursing professors is higher than that of other disciplines, and it makes sense for those programs to be more expensive.
But what happens to students who can only afford a degree in a cheaper field? Should public universities set prices according to the laws of supply and demand? Or will higher tuition for, say, engineers only discourage students from becoming the workers we will need in the future? Link
(Image credit: Flickr user gadgetdude)
Because it's the University of Tennessee. It doesn't have to make sense, so long as it puts more money in the admin's pockets.
I'd be all for charging art and philosophy majors more and engineering and med majors less. Discourage the accumulation of debt for an education that doesn't qualify you to do much more than a high school diploma. Maybe it'd work just as well if they opened and closed majors like military rank structure. You can only pick up rank, after a certain point, when your occupational specialty is "open" and there's space available.
I think I'm just annoyed by folks who are complaining about their $80k in debt they accrued while earning that fancy whitebread liberal arts degree that was hip and socially acceptable to them at the time.
It sort of makes sense that they'd penalize folks who are attempting to get a degree that might lead to gainful employment...on a current events social level at least. hahlollerlulz.
It makes perfect sense from a business point of view, but horrible sense from a societal point of view. Which, again, is why pure free market systems are a poor choice for humanity overall. They have a natural propensity to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few.
Because University/College was considered option additional education back when High Schools taught crazy stuff like math, science, English, and history. A person with a High School diploma was considered educated.
Things have changed. We've gone from a HS Graduate knowing algebra and applied physics, to HS Graduates not being able to even spell algebra, all the way to Harvard post-graduates that can't balance their check books.
There's far too much emphasis put on a college degree. All people want is that paper and care not one bit about learning something that will directly apply to the job market.
Something seems fishy. You have double the revenue, but don't increase the budget. Then why gouge students, if you aren't going to raise the budget with double revenue?
In the end, the tuition in all studies will go up. Before everyone knew what the increase would be in tution, but now they'll have to look up their specific department. Less unity = less griping. Or we'll gripe wiith each other over what is fare, giving the same result.
If the expense of degrees become a trend, what about who has the most epensive building or facilities?
I was a liberal arts major at a university best known for it's engineering school. There was nothing to stop me from fulfilling my science and math requirements by taking the same science and math courses as the engineering students, and nothing to stop me from filling up my "elective" options with the same engineering courses.
Upon graduation, however, without the Engineering degree I was ineligible to sit for the FE exam towards professional licensure. But very few of my friends with the ABET accredited degree bothered to sit for the FE, they just got jobs and got on with life -- their employers were concerned with their knowledge and skills, not with their certifications.
There does not need to be any subsidies. There needs to be open books, auditing, and discontinuation of tenure.
You (or your kids) PAY a University for education, yet nobody holds them to the same type of accountability that one does a other services. Why not? If your goal is education, then demand that you get value. If you just want to pay for a piece of paper with a name on it, then none of this really matters.
If a Professor takes up most of the class talking off-topic, demand your money back. That's what you'd do with a plumber that talked about her family life instead of unclogging your drain.
Until and unless Universities and Colleges are held to the same expectations as Trade Schools, absolutely nothing will change and will all end up paying more while getting less.
tinspoons, I agree 100% with the gov subsidies, but I will say that the pattern is usually that there are a lot of educated people who have degrees and not enough jobs suited to their educations, so you get a lot of people with law degrees driving taxies, and STILL no equality. At least, that's how I've seen it in the other countries I've visited, I'm no expert by any means.
My insignificant BA in Theatre didn't earn me much, but hey, it was free!
Actually I think higher education should be heavily subsidized by the government, but the rich and powerful Oz doesn't want an educated society (might lead to more equality).