Should colleges charge future engineers less than future poets? It may happen! (Kennesaw: credit, loans)

[dichloromethane]

My take:

* 20% decreased tuition should be given to STEM or life science majors AFTER two years of coursework with a minimum GPA WHILE being on track for 4-year graduation.(preferably a 3.2 or higher - science majors are far more difficult than non-science majors. Ask any engineering student what they think of a 3.2 GPA)

This way we don't have people who can't cut it as biology or engineering majors trying to trick to system. For the first two years, tuition is the same. After weed-out classes and career rethinking we can throw around money.

* English and art majors should NOT have to pay MORE. They should pay the standard amount. It's wrong that we would charge those who will be making considerably less(if anything depending on the student and university) with their degree.

* These rules should only apply to research universities.

CONS: Decreased $ for schools will make this tricky.

Should colleges charge future engineers less than future poets? | Get Schooled

[K-SawDude]

No. There's not consistent evidence that we have demand not being met for many STEM professions. Some engineering fields are as saturated with unemployed engineering undergrads as careers for communications majors. It may not always be like this in the future, but at present I'm not persuaded we have some sort of broad lack of STEM students with millions of unfilled jobs just waiting for all of them.

It's also a fallacy that liberal arts don't produce needed skill sets for various professions in our economy. Critical thinking, problem solving, oral and written communication are all hallmarks of English, philosophy, history, and similar programs. And one should not assume that those fields are necessarily easier than the STEM track. I was an English and Math major as an undergrad (weird combo, I know). But at my undergrad institution, those two departments gave the lowest average grades for majors--even lower than chemistry.

I can't find the article for some reason, but within the last year or so there was a study of cognitive development during the undergrad years based on different disciplines. The results were basically that some fields--both STEM and some of the liberal arts tracks like English, philosophy, and history--were the most likely to develop students' critical thinking skills and analytical abilities. Some other fields, such as communications and business, showed far less cognitive development. (In some cases, students were no better at complex thinking at the end of their degrees than at the beginning.) That might seem a bit strange, but what all the more effective fields had in common was regular demanding work (substantial problem solving), lots of writing, and lots of difficult reading.

I just think we need to be a bit careful with preferential subsidies for academic fields, particularly if we're building preferences on the perceived whims of job market demand.

[rorqual]

Don't engineering/sciences students already pay more fees per credit hour? There's also the extra lab fees etc.

[AnsleyPark]

Makes no sense. Costs more for the school to educate an engineer than a poet.

[dichloromethane]

You may have a lab fee that you need to pay for science courses, but I don't think overall tuition is affected simply because you're a chemistry major or an engineering major.

I think this would be a boon to pre-health students. The cost of medical and dental education has skyrocketed, and the returns have diminished. My beloved chemistry majors tend not to become chemist. They tend to become doctors, dentists and pharmacists. The crushing loan problem is a huge issue for the education healthcare professionals. We're in a huge deficit of doctors and dentists. Hence, the nursing and PA glut..not so much pharmacists, but you see my point.

Excellent points K-saw(I'm assuming you went to Kennesaw State here in Georgia?). But I'd counter argue here. How many of your English peers found jobs in English? How many of your peers found jobs in art and anthropology?

It's about fighting diploma mills, not English majors. I agree with you. I hated writing papers, and I still do. I much rather sit in my lab running distillations and reactions or solving math problems. Humanity majors do bring something to the table. The problem is we want EVERYONE to go to college and EVERYONE to graduate within 4-6 years. It simply doesn't work. Saturation + poor skill sets.

[CollegeStudentinAtl]

I think it should be the opposite. STEM degrees should be the same/if not higher and future poets, mass communications, etc should be much lower.

[arjay57]

I'd say stick it to the engineers. In most cases they are going to earn more than poets.

[dichloromethane]

Originally Posted by CollegeStudentinAtl

I think it should be the opposite. STEM degrees should be the same/if not higher and future poets, mass communications, etc should be much lower.

They are more expensive. STEM degrees require numerous lab requirements. For those of you who do not know STEM refers to Science Technology Engineering and Math degrees. Anything from pharmacology, to physics to computer science is considered STEM.

I don't think we should charge those who are going to give back to the school, society and economy the highest tuition. Sure, we give a break to the art history majors, but we put less responsability on the student. It was their fault for pulling out loans to major in photography. Sure, we can say "well I was just young. I didn't know any better." Well yeah, but so was the chemistry major who graduated at 20 and went to go work for Sigma Aldrich.


We don't want anymore of that.

[CollegeStudentinAtl]

Me Personally, I don't think that tuition should be raised for any STEM major; however, those majors, "I think", use more resources than other majors on campus. Lab fees, Highly trained Professors/Doctors/Engineers (a must) in a good STEM program, science equipment, long hours, preparing research, and much more....

In my opinion, I think all people paying the same amount of money for a college to get a "different standard" degree is kind of wrong. Should a physical education student should be paying the same amount as a biology student? I don't think so.

In a way, the majority of students who majors are not essential or do not use many resources for the degree, say Physical Education or Religion, are subsidizing the STEM majors because they are so expensive to teach. I think that is why so many colleges just have a flat rate price for many students.

But on the Flip side; STEM Majors bring a lot of resources/revenue to the school. In the form of grants, talents, & break through research.

These are just my opinions though & I can be really wrong on some issues.

[ATLTJL]

What an interesting concept.

I do see it from the perspective of the state. I mean, even though students pay tuition, they are still largely subsidized by taxpayers as tutiont does not cover the overhead of the university. So doesn't it make sense to incentivize students to study the areas where they are going to make more money and contribue more to the tax base when they graduate? It's standard return on investment stuff.

Personally, and I'm sure I'm pretty much alone on this, I think universities shouldn't even be allowed to offer degrees in art, English, or journalism. These majors are complete wastes of resources and the jobs that people obtain with these degrees more often than not do not require college degrees. I'm not sayin that we should stop funding education in these areas, but kids should be able to elect to go to special 2 year schools that offer these types of degrees so they aren't eating resources that could be better utilized by the students that will actually need them in their jobs. I don't see why a bunch of poetry, creative writing, and women's studies majors should be taking professor and class space in Chemistry 101 or Calculus 101 when we could be filling those rooms with people who will actually use the knowledge they gain there instead of taking all the resources and then forgetting everything they learned.

And I say this as someone who has a degree in one of the majors that I think 4 year universities shouldn't be allowed to award.