Slashdot Mirror
Higher Tuition For an Engineering Degree
i_like_spam writes "The NYTimes is running a story about a new trend in tuition charges at public universities throughout the country. Differential pricing schemes are being implemented, whereby majors in engineering and business pay higher tuition rates than majors in arts and humanities. Last year, for instance, engineering majors at the University of Nebraska starting paying an extra $40 per credit hour. One argument in support of differential pricing is that professors in engineering and business are more expensive than in other fields. Officials at schools that are implementing differential pricing are aware of some of the downsides. A dean at Iowa State said he 'thought society was no longer looking at higher education as a common good but rather as a way for individuals to increase their earning power.' And a University of Kansas provost said, 'Where we have gone astray culturally is that we have focused almost exclusively on starting salary as an indicator of... the value of the particular major.'"
The first thing that I thought of when read this story earlier, was why should engineering and science students pay more if their departments are the ones bringing in the most money from research grants from the government and industry. It seems ass-backwards to me, unless this is being done by schools without any research program to speak of. If that is the case I think they threaten to drive themselves to obsoletion. Most of these sorts of schools already provide a lower quality of education in those fields, and now they want to raise their prices as well. Good luck with that.
I'm sure you enjoy banging rocks together outside in the forest, but culture and engineering for most people are fairly symbiotic.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
That's already the case for graduate education at most universities, engineering credit hours cost more. Substantially more in many cases.
However, that is a reflection of economic realities. School's have to be more competitive in hiring engineering faculty. Whereas for most humanities, most PhDs would like nothing more than an academic position at a university, that is simply not the case for Engineering faculty. School's not only have to compete with other education institutions, but industry as well, which can afford to pay PhDs a lot more. To a lesser extent, this also translates in the stipends a department pays engineering grad students, they get more.
Also, an engineering education costs more in terms of support. Engineering labs, equipment, etc. all add on to the cost of the education.
While I can appreciate the notion of "knowledge for knowledge's sake", which is infact how most universities started, that is not reality today. Not all disciplines are equal in economic terms. The barriers to entry into the arts and humanities are lower than the hard sciences/engineering. For proof of that, look in universities or the working world. How many people switch their majors from sciences/engineering to arts/humanities, and how many do vice-a-versa? Also, most of those who switch away from sci/eng do so because they are struggling in those fields.
Even beyond college, you often hear of a former individual with a background in sci/eng transitioning into more "soft" areas, such as policy research, K-12 teaching, art, etc. But you almost never hear of a political science graduate becoming the lead tech on an engineering project. The only place where that transition does take place is in Comp Sci, and that's because the barrier to entry there is lower than other Engr fields. And I'm not even going to count the transition to IT, because IT is different from Comp Sci, and is not a Sci/Engr domain.
-"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-
It's a pretty straightforward thing to understand... when education is treated as a business, those who provide the education will provide a financial disincentive to join high paying fields.
That's a big part of why Americans are so damned ignorant. Honestly... who but the pampered few could afford intellectual curiosity in such a place?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
sanitation and clean water supplies have arguably done more to extend the average lifespan than the entire field of medicine.
As a university student in America, I agree that intellectual curiosity is a rarity. I take one random class every semester about something I know nothing about - a new language, history of a different region, that sort of thing - and my friends just don't understand taking a class that isn't required for graduation. College seems to be now entirely for job preparation: people get to college, pick what they feel is the highest-paying career field they are interested in, steamroll their way through, and then enter the workforce. The idea of knowledge for knowledge's sake is disappearing. Or is it just that universities are more accessible now? Maybe there are just as many knowledge-lovers attending and participating in universities, but they're simply drowned out by the people who view universities as trade schools now that more people are able to attend.
I gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh on the "so called" engineering shortage "propaganda" a vast majority of the CEO's and colleges today put out today. Colleges I can understand, because with a larger student enrollment they can get more state dollars. So, they can and often do say whatever they want to, to get more state funding.
What CEO's say, is downright sinister in my opinion and nothing short of pure GREED.
I gave a couple of examples about the trends in off shoring of jobs, but the real question isn't, "How many engineers do we need." I think the markets are willing to manage their own demand.
Besides, American CEO's are not interested in that question, they are more interested in a similar question. Certainly not that one though.
So I explained to my audience, that when you hear these CEO's in front of congress preaching they need more off shore help because there is a "shortage" of qualified engineers, keep in mind they are not asking your congressional reps the full "question".
Certainly I can assure you all hear, when they mean "qualified" they do not mean academic credentials.
What they really mean is, there is not enough fully qualified engineers willing to work for $5 bucks and hour in software, industrial design and architecture, and they cannot find them anywhere in the United States.
Furthermore, I think the educational system in general in this country is way over priced as is, for what you get anyway.
You are practically asking a person to become a financial serf unless of course your wealthy enough to actually go to a University, get through in 4 years (i.e. because you don't have to work and go to school at the same time.).
Particularly if you are in an engineering program which is very very challenging in the number of hours you have to dedicate yourself in.
People are screwed because if it takes you about 6 years to complete a engineering degree, your going to endure a much larger increase in educational expenses, at a much lower living wage.
This can make FINISHING school a VERY hard challenge for a vast majority of students out there, who thought the hardest part of getting into a University institution was just a SAT score, or good grades in high school.
Many are finding, that PALES in comparison to actually STAYING in school and finishing it while working 2-3 jobs while paying for yearly expenses.
Which in the end, you have to ask yourself how much depth you put into that education with a C+ average was really worth it after 6 years, because you could barely find enough time to study while maintaining 2 jobs and going to school.
A what? 40K investment for a C+ average? What depth were you actually able to study the material?
Since grades can be a job entrance factor, todays young people are REALLY squeezed between a rock and hard place.
I see many very bright people never given the chance to get that A simply because it is impossible to sustain a 18 hour work day and compete with "the silver spoon" kids which all they have to do is go to school, and basically do their home work.
I drew a picture of "Johnny" and "Rick" both computer science students. "Johnny" I would say was actually a more intelligent kid than "Rick". But Johnny consistently got lower grades, and had a few late assignments which cost him grade points. "Johnny" had to use the computer lab for most of his work because he had no computer in his dorm. The computers in the computer lab though were not kept up well, slow and very difficult to get on during normal hours. So labs had waiting lists and you had to sign up for computer use.
"Rick" however, not only had a computer, but a laser printer and internet access in his private apartment the old man bought him. Write a compiler? No problem, in a nice quiet apartment with no noisy neighbors, Rick worked deep into the night all through the semester, finishing the project on time, no problem.
"Johnny" had to sleep outs
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.