<p>USNews and other ranking systems factor in graduation rates, which are also available to prospective students/parents and state policymakers. Flat-rate tuition scales are designed to boost grad rate figures by encouraging students to complete more credits each semester, theoretically reducing the number of semesters required to graduate.</p>
<p>
The government, in the form of state-run universities, has already stepped in and said that is what they want.</p>
<p>UMass charges more for engineering students, but only about 3% more. I don’t think it is enough to make people choose a different major.</p>
<p>If some majors cost more, they should charge more. Especially so in this case given that job and income prospects for the graduating engineer is higher. I think it’s a fallacious argument to say everything should cost the same because that isn’t true even now. If you want to do Pharma, Law, or Medicine, you have to do a lot more than 4 years and nobody’s arguing that the total cost of these degrees should be kept the same.</p>
<p>I recently read an article on how graduation rates for STEM majors were decreasing because of course difficulty. This is adding insult to injury, we want to make it easier for our nation to pump out science and research not suppress it, if anything, the government should fund engineering majors to pull our nation ahead.</p>
<p>SPUTNIK!</p>
<p>No. This is wrong. It’s bad enough most people have to speculate on their future successes and commit to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans. There shouldn’t be an additional penalty on engineering or medical majors. They already have this system in place called the “progressive tax code” where they actually, believe it or not, charge you a HIGHER tax percentage rate if you actually succeed in your career. There’s no need to ALSO preemptively charge a premium to people on the prediction of future success.</p>
<p>This will push people away from these fields, and require more foreign workers to pick up the slack for our lack of qualified graduates. Medical and engineering colleges bring advancements in cancer treatments, new energy sources, and new forms of useful machinery and electronics, for example. English majors bring…what? New ways to interpret 300 year old books and 1000 year old poems? Yeah, <em>that’ll</em> save lives. You want fairness in major pricing? How about charging a premium in tuition for taking degrees with poor job prospects, like English or Philosophy? Successful engineering graduates help subsidize these majors through the extra taxes they pay after graduation.</p>
<p>This is preemptive class warfare, at its finest. Man up and take a hard science or math major, people! Quit being jealous of success and get your own!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sumzup, has it occurred to you that the two phenomena are connected?</p>
<p>Offer more government money, and the schools will raise tuition. The problem is the <em>lack</em> of a proper price system based on supply and demand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are we falling behind? We produce more science PhDs than we have employment for, we produce more than enough engineering and computer science majors (if anything there is a surplus). The idea of an American shortage of engineering and science talent is a myth created by business to provoke subsidies for STEM education and to increase the number of STEM immigrants allowed into the country per year, both of which result in a greater supply of STEM talent and thereby lower wages from what they would otherwise be in this country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can you justify taking somebody’s (call him Tim) tax dollars in order to pay for some stranger’s (call him Bob) occupational training?</p>
<p>Why does Tim owe Bob a single penny? Bob will get Tim’s money, graduate, get a job and earn a paycheck. Does he give part of his paycheck to Bob now? If engineering is so important and in demand, surely the payment Bob will get as an engineer means he doesn’t need Tim’s money, he could take out a loan and easily repay it.</p>
<p>The reason that tax-funded schools (K-12 or colleges/universities) exist at all is because even the wealthy generally believe that allowing human talent to go to waste just because someone was born into a poor family will cause the overall economy to be smaller, which means decreased wealth for all, including the wealthy.</p>
<p>Don’t engineer/science majors already get charged extra lab fees that others don’t?</p>
<p>It would make sense… they make more salary-wise.</p>
<p>But, frankly, it is up to each individual school.</p>
<p>UIUC has an engineering surcharge (don’t recall how much as my S graduated about 5 years ago). About $2100/semester more, I think. They also charge more for business majors and some others. </p>
<p>We paid it willingly to have S attend a fantastic school for his major (CS). (Well, he also had a good scholarship so paid the equiv of in-state tuition.)</p>
<p>Lecture course all cost about the same (lecturing 100 folks on Calc 2 isn’t much different than lecturing 100 folks on Econ 1)… It’s the lab component that generates additional cost, and many/all Universities already charge additional for labs. </p>
<p>Engineering schools (and med schools) also generate far more revenue and grants for the university, than the humanities. These schools also help generate donations, much of which goes to the general fund. The history major is not subsidizing the engineering student.</p>
<p>So, really, we’re talking about a “progressive” tuition scheme, based on possible future earnings. There really isn’t a need for one (since labs or surcharges already cover the cost difference), so why put it in place? It’s one thing to use a progressive taxing scheme, based on actual earnings, it’s another to put it in place based on expected earnings.</p>
<p>This seems more like an opportunity to increase tuition, something Universities are always looking to do (especially Publics, that need approvals for each tuition hike). Of course, there is always a need to hire more administers…who doesn’t need a new director of student parking!</p>
<p>(Caveat: Building a new Engineering school (or med school, etc) is expensive, based on initial outlays of capital that must be spent, long before you generate revenue, grants, etc…but there is a reason schools want those engineering, med and law schools, and that’s revenue.)</p>
<p>very interesting…never thought about it</p>
<p>Collages are always looking for a way to charge more the students, so once we graduate we are all burden in debt. just not fair</p>
<p>No. Discourages individuals from doing what they truly want to do.</p>
<p>TomServo: I agree that increased government funding and higher tuition costs are correlated if the funding goes directly to students (i.e. through loans/grants). More funding directly to schools should be inversely proportional to tuition. At least at my university, the reduction of money from the state was the direct cause of higher tuition costs.</p>
<p>Gator88NE “Engineering schools (and med schools) also generate far more revenue and grants for the university, than the humanities. These schools also help generate donations, much of which goes to the general fund. The history major is not subsidizing the engineering student.”</p>
<p>Grants are usually for research which certainly do not benefit undergrad education. Grad students might be funded by the research grants. Med school revenues often are less than the cost of funding the school/hospital. It would be nice to have some real numbers to discuss. </p>
<p>I don’t know whether donations from engineering grads exceed those from humanities or business school. The lab fees usually cover the cost of lab materials consumed not the higher costs of educating engineering students.</p>
<p>The issue in the OP is tricky because you need actual cost information and an understanding of organizational behavior including that of external stakeholders. Then you have to look at how tuition changes affect the strategic vision for the university and the relationship with other public universities in the state.</p>
<p>^ Grant money does support part of the PI’s salary and also has indirect cost paying to school that it may benefit the undergraduate (actually the school). The indirect cost can be as high as the direct cost in a grant depending on the school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a fundamental difference between general education, what one might call “citizenship training,” and the type of education that many/most college majors offer, which amounts to occupational training.</p>
<p>Citizenship training includes reading, writing, math, history, civics, etc., and one can make good arguments for why this counts as a public good and ought to be paid for by the government (though it does not necessarily follow that the schools that provide this education need to be owned and operated by the government).</p>
<p>However, once you get into occupational training, it is hard to make a credible argument for why strangers should pay for the economic betterment of another person.</p>