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.
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.
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...
They already charge more for Engineering degrees. It's called "lab fees" rather than tuition. Another good one is "Engineering major surcharge" that I had to pay.
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.
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.
Long ago, college dorms were more like Army barracks. Now they are private apartments. Food was served in a cafeteria, and you ate what they had today. Now they are more like food courts, and require far more staff. Students expect this kind of service, and if a school doesn't upgrade, they lose students to schools that do. It's overhead that has risen the cost of education, not the cost of professors. The difference in equipment and classrooms between engineering and liberal arts is small compared to the school environment costs.
There should be exactly one deciding factor dictating whether or not you can get a degree: Your brain.
Most European countries follow that idea. My university gets stormed with new students every September and their solution was quite simple: Radical testing. 3 semesters in about 10-20% of the students remain and most of them actually finish.
If you got a LOT of people wanting a degree and you're not dependent on them paying you, you can test brutally to eliminate anyone who isn't willing to put in time and effort above and beyond anyone else, and what you get in the end, holding a degree, IS the best you could possibly get. Everyone who isn't perished.
Who said that "free" cannot end up in ruthless competition that makes any cold blooded capitalist beg for mercy?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
(including professor salaries, facilities fees, administrative costs)
Maybe it's time to take a good, hard look at those. Especially the "administrative costs".
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.
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.
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.
More trades / tech schools are needed and they should not be locked in to the 4 year system.
Most superstar Research professors bring in money through NSF grants rather than use College money (besides their salary). Those grants are used to pay the college for the tuition of the grad students working for the professor so the college actually makes money from superstar researchers. It also helps to attract undergrads to a college who are attracted by being able to attend a class with a Noble laureate.
Similarly large college teams make money from the ticket sales and are net profit for the colleges.
College education costs are going up because they are beginning to reflect the real cost. Earlier academics were underpaid for their worth (they were paid in respect) and govts picked up a large portion of the tab for colleges (these direct grants to colleges as opposed to research grants are disappearing)
Also with a large strata of society which never went to college beginning to go to college a lot more scholarships are being handed out. This is compensated for by charging higher tuition to the rest so the sticker price of college tuition is going up. Many of these students have gone through low quality high schools and are not ready for college and end up taking 6 years to pass what used to be 4 year college hence also driving up their costs. Sad part is even those who could graduate in 4 take 6 so as to enjoy the party atmosphere of college and these folks are not on scholarships so end up paying for 6 years all of it at the higher sticker price.
**Life is too short to be serious**
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.