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.

27 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. No by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Community college and state colleges should be free, like it is in civilized countries.

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    1. Re: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that would devalue my degree. It'd also increase housing prices.

      I say no!

    2. Re:No by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about we first find out why college is so expensive and fix that?

      If you think it's expensive now, just wait until it's free.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I get more than that. I can drive to work with working roads. I can walk downtown without having shove a gun in my face and demand my wallet, with my wife and kid being seized for sex slaves. I can go cross country without worry that bandits will block a highway. I can tell the government to fuck off, and I won't be going to jail for it. I don't have to worry about bodyguards or having to pack when downtown.

      So, government provides me a lot. The fact that I don't wake up to looters wanting to burn down my house is a big thing.

    4. Re:No by Fragnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the cost should be inversely proportional to the stupidity of the degree, and the likelihood you'll come out of the course knowing less than you did before you started it. For example a course in mathematics or physics should be free. A course in feminist dance theory or gender studies should cost at least $500,000, possibly more.

    5. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A capable workforce that will continue to provide for a decent society and actually might advance the cost of living? That sure as hell beats just people capable of menial work where actual economic booms don't happen.

      Look at the southeast part of the US. Education isn't common there. Neither do booms happen. The entire region has been in a depression for decades. Now look at CA, NYC, Austin, and other areas where there are educated people. Said areas are booming. Notice the correlation?

      Yes, you may not want to pay for someone's kid to be educated, but that kid is going to be growing up and paying for your retirement, and he will be either employed and making money, or unemployed on meth trying to break into your house because there is no future.

      This whole thing about not funding education is just plain retarded. Yes, I stated the "R" word. Farmers understand you till and plant a field so you get a decent havest. Not funding education is like being the guy who buys seed corn, eats it, then wonders why the field produces little but weeds. This is the US in a nutshell.

      Part of the reason why the Indians, Pakistanis, and Chinese are moving in and sending real estate prices through the stratosphere is simple. They are educated, the natives they are replacing are not. Do you want to live in a world where because you didn't spend time to get ready for a race, you are perceived as the dump shit in your native country while everyone else around you is treated better because they are not US citizens? Its happening.

      tl;dr/ELI5: Educated people make a stable, prosperous society. Uneducated people become the slaves of the educated people.

    6. Re:No by Notabadguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While that is funny...

      I'd much prefer that college was free - like it should be - and is in most first world countries - and that instead, the sponsored state/federal institutions didn't offer feminist dance theory or gender studies - and that you could instead elect to go to a private institution for some crap like that.

    7. Re: No by sound+vision · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But that would promote economic equality. The blacks will move into our neighborhoods, and marry our daughters.

    8. Re:No by Salgak1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently the Left has a problem with name-calling as well. If objectifying women or minorities is bad, so is objectifying the competition.

      Hint: this is why we got Trump. . .

    9. Re:No by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shifting the costs is the point here: college students are the ones least able to pay for their own education. They don't have a job yet (that's why they go to college), and unlike high school, the workload from college is often high enough that getting a part-time job would make their education and performance suffer.

    10. Re:No by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing eh? No police or fire protection? No water or electricity? No libraries? No defense or disaster services? Airports? Railroads? Nominally representative government? (Well, nothing is perfect.)

      Sucks to be you, I suppose.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:No by Altus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah because its NATO operations that are costing us so much money compared to the wars we have stared all on our own, or the 6.5 trillion dollars that the Pentagon can't account for... or all the money spent on the F-35 the plane nobody wanted.

      It has nothing to do with the fact that NATO is all thats standing between our presidents Dom, Master Putin, and the Scandinavian countries he really wants to invade.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    12. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the cost should be inversely proportional to the stupidity of the degree, and the likelihood you'll come out of the course knowing less than you did before you started it. For example a course in mathematics or physics should be free. A course in feminist dance theory or gender studies should cost at least $500,000, possibly more.

      This is funny, but it also points out a fallacy that a lot of people make about what going to college is about. University is not a trade school. Much of what we're trying to teach, even in 4-year state schools' engineering departments is how to think and how to evaluate a breadth of ideas. If you just want to take classes on how to program, go find a MOOC and build experience by contributing to an open-source project. Being at University should not only give you skills, but it should also teach you how to think and be a member of a community. What's wrong with dance and gender studies being a part of that?

    13. Re:No by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "raw cost" to educate has decreased due to efficiency and technology. What has flipped is the subsidized percentage. When I earned a BS in the 80's, tuition, room board & fees was (c)$3k per semester. Costs were subsidized by the State by over 80% leaving the 20% residual to students as tuition. . Tight State budgets, screaming conservatives and greed have flipped State sponsorship to 20% leaving 80% on the backs of students. Throw in predatory lenders and for profit schools and the result is a disaster. Like the guy above saying "i don't have kids, I shouldn't pay for schools!" - but you do pay when uneducated, unemployable criminals break into your home and steal your stuff. Either we as a society value education and the benefits it delivers or we do not. and if we collectively decide there is value in education, we must fund it.

    14. Re:No by ghoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually if you are in the 35% bracket you need the police and the military to protect you from being eaten alive by the masses. So most of the govt budget is spent on you. Social spending is nothing compared to the law enforcement and military budget.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    15. Re:No by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's wrong with dance and gender studies being a part of that?

      It's an ideological indoctrination, not a study of anything.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  2. Include all costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the university has any research, the overhead from funded research will help offset the cost of undergraduate education, as well as graduate.

    Then, there's the costs of athletic programs, Don't forget that, and assign it to the right departments...

  3. Strange by radl33t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but how much are they enabled by non-tuition revenue? Engineering departments can pull in massive public and private research funding compared to English departments. The overhead rate at my alma matter was ~50%, straight into University coffers, "to keep the lights on." Despite the high salaries of some accomplished professors, our department was pulling in millions annually for the school that went to all sorts of education expenses (building, IT, classrooms, and of course, most of the high-flying salaries). Our department received high dollar alumni gifts that I doubt flood all departments equally.

    1. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ^^ This. Professors who earn high salaries do so because they bring in significant grant money. I know the public wants to believe that the engineering professor teaches 1 class a week using notes from 1975 and earns three times what the English professor, on the cutting edge of knowledge and feelings, writing a very important novel that will change the world, makes. But the truth is that the engineering professor has $2M in grants and half goes to the university; he covers every penny of us $200k salary.

      It's about as merit based as you can get. In private companies, the value of an employee is impossible to determine. But in science and engineering academia, we know exactly how much a professor is worth because we know exactly how much grant money the university gets because of him. Many of these professors cover their own salaries five times over; the slackers at least cover their own compensation. That makes them profit centers to the university, since the tuition money they get from the students they teach isn't coming with any actual labor costs.

  4. But... by dbialac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People in technical majors are going to be subsidizing liberal arts majors the rest of their lives, why not let them subsidize technical majors while they're in college?

    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, but without movies and music and websites created by liberal arts majors, there's no need for 95% of electrical engineers anymore.

  5. Administrative costs by alexo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (including professor salaries, facilities fees, administrative costs)

    Maybe it's time to take a good, hard look at those. Especially the "administrative costs".

  6. The question is premature. by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first thing you have to establish is what is the basis you want to judge by: The good of society? The good of the students? The good of the faculty or the administration? The good of human knowledge as a whole? These all lead to fundamentally different ways of evaluating the question.

    I should point out that not every institution of higher learning has the same purpose. A for-profit institution like University of Phoenix exists to turn its proprietors a buck. The very reason for an academic department to exist is to be a profit center, and if it can't pull its weight, either due insufficient pull (Classics) or excessive weight (engineering), it doesn't have a right to exist. At the opposite end of the spectrum are Jesuit colleges which exist to glorify God by cultivating each individual student's God-given talents.

    I see no intrinsic need for all majors to cost the same. But the whether it's a good idea depends on your mission, your strategy for accomplishing it, and the resources at your disposal. It may well come down to what you can afford to do.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. Re:You mean "forced to pay, whether you attend or by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't have kids, but I pay taxes for other people's kids to go to grade school for free. I have paid those taxes all my life, and I get nothing for it myself. In fact, much of my property tax on my house goes to pay for local education. But I am perfectly happy with this because education should be free in a civilized society. It is too important to to make it something people have to go into debt for. If we were not spending around $600 billion a year on bombing the middle east and occupying the rest of the world with military bases, it would be very easy to make community college free for everyone.

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  8. More trades / tech schools are needed and not 4 ye by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More trades / tech schools are needed and they should not be locked in to the 4 year system.

  9. You get quite a bit out of those taxes by gwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You get a better society, a society where your neighbours' kids have a better understanding of the world, a better future, better job prospects, less likelihood to rob you, and a long great etcetera.

  10. You're making 6 figures and you get nothing? by Brannon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. nobody has killed you and taken your stuff
    2. your savings [denominated in dollars] isn't subject to rampant inflation
    3. your job exists because of a large, diverse, functional economy
    4. no other country has invaded ours and destroyed our economy

    If you think #1-#4 are easy, then please point me to the other country which manages all of these at lower taxes.