Slashdot Mirror
Should College Tuition Vary By Major, Based On the College's Costs For the Major? (qz.com)
Registered Coward v2 writes: Vault, in a blog post, discusses whether colleges should base tuition on the actual cost of providing the education rather than on a one-price-for-all-credits basis. Their argument is based on a Quartz article that shows engineering and science degrees cost schools a lot more than liberal arts degrees for a variety of reasons, including higher professor salaries and equipment/infrastructure costs. As a result, those majors are subsidized by the cheaper ones even though they also have the highest earnings in aggregate. The new paper on the topic estimates that it typically costs the universities more than $62,000 to educate an engineer (including professor salaries, facilities fees, and administrative costs), while an English or business major costs nearly half that. Quartz has a chart embedded in its report that shows the cost of education by major at the University of Florida. There's also another chart that shows the earnings of past graduates, up to age 45, minus the cost of each degree. According to the paper, even though it costs more for an engineering degree, it pays off.
When I finished my undergrad years ago I paid lab costs and other associated costs for the courses in my major that people who primarily took lecture-only courses did not have to pay.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
My university gets stormed with new students every September and their solution was quite simple: Radical testing.
If the States tried that, I'd expect mass lawsuits from inner-city students who fail the test and don't get accepted because of "discrimination".
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Not only should the costs be the same but the article nicely explains why: those getting science, engineering etc. degrees generally earn more and so will pay more tax. This extra tax should be more than enough to offset the cost of their education and is also a good way to justify why higher salaries should attract a higher rate of tax.
At my university (in Canada) 20 years ago they charged different rates depending on the college offering the class. I just checked the current fees and they continue to do this. At the low end is Arts at $192 per credit unit, Computer Science is $219, Engineering is $227, Applied Music is $290, and interestingly Law is $420.
I like what someone suggested above- cost is determined based on your grade point average. Maintain all A's and it's free. Have all C's or a C average and you pay full price. If you can't maintain a high grade, perhaps you shouldn't be in school.
And get even more grade inflation?
I used to teach in a European college with a lot of American exchange students. When I grade a good paper, I give it 7/10, which is a "cum laude" grade. However, the American students complained:
US Student: I did what you asked.
Me: Yes, you did.
US Student: Then why do you give me a low grade?
Me: 7/10 is not a low grade.
US Student: If I return to the states with a C+, it will ruin my GPA. I want an A grade.
Me: Sorry, for a 9/10 you need to do more than just what I have asked, you need more than a good paper. You need an excellent, outstanding paper. If I give all good papers a 9/10, how can I reward excellent work?
US Student: I am calling my lawyer.
So I'm taking "Human Anatomy and Physiology II" in a summer session and one of the Ladies in my class has a 13 year old daughter who's too young to stay home all day on her own and way too old for daycare. The lady asks the instructor if her Daughter can sit in on the class because of the above and the Instructor agrees. In lecture she asks a few intelligent questions, in lab she dissects her fetal pig like everyone else. Eventually we come to the first hour exam, the Instructor hesitantly hands her a test and she get a C on it. At this point she's pretty much a student like everyone else, she finishes the course with a C+. The Instructor, who's the Science Dept Chairman, get her retro-actively enrolled, credits her for the course, and transfers the credit back to her middle school.
In 1980 that was pretty amazing, now most Colleges have dual enrolment programs so High School Students can get College credits before they graduate. The confidence in public education has deteriorated to the point a High School Graduate with out being able to check "Some College" on a job app is really in YMMV territory..
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It's really not. I've seen too many people in college that really have no aptitude for anything, come out with a lot of debt, and then we have to hear about how they're overburdened with debt and it's somebody else's fault.
Besides, tuition is already very heavily subsidized in the US. When at community college, I recall seeing a Korean student's receipt and she paid something like $9000 for 12 credit hours whereas mine cost $700 for the same.
$700 was at the time (2004'ish) enough to make you say "well, let me think about it" vs "it's free so let's go to college whether it makes sense or not" but not so much that you needed a loan.
I also think we should get rid of student loans because they put upward pressure on tuition rates, making the super expensive colleges even more expensive even after the subsidies.
> If you think it's expensive now, just wait until it's free.
I hear people say that about health care and it's hilariously stupid because the US pays the most per capita for health care and covers way less people than other countries do. We have entire regions in this country where the health care many people get is third world level.
So millions of poor Americans suffer needlessly because people would rather quote cute little dismissive phrases like that than to actually consider how we could be doing things better. Ironically, the usual motivation behind this attitude is how terrible it would be to pay higher taxes to give poor people free health care, doesn't even work out because people who are dying or in great pain and who have no health care often end up in emergency wards getting care anyway. That care isn't "free" and ends up being paid for by higher insurance premiums and, yep taxes, for the rest of us. So we would save **massive** sums of money by implementing a basic level of universal preventative care, and we would keep millions of people from suffering.
I bet the same thing would be true for giving people a basic level of college education but again we will never even consider it because a huge swath of this country has completely shut their minds to any and all evidence of anything that disagrees with their world view.
It is NOT just you. WHY is no one mentioning this? I know Slashdot always jokes about not RTFA, but this just bizarre. Here's the correct link: https://qz.com/884450/which-co...