More universities charging more tuition for harder majors - what do you think?


Olde Hornet

Well-Known Member
http://www.usatoday.com/news/educat...ifferential-tuition-increase-major/54513940/1

Having a hard major is getting more expensive.

A growing number of public universities are charging higher tuition for math, science and business programs, which they argue cost more to teach — and can earn grads higher-paying jobs.
More than 140 public universities now use "differential tuition" plans, up 19% since 2006, according to research from Cornell's Higher Education Research Institute. That number is increasing as states cut higher-education spending and schools try to pay for expensive technical programs.
"It's been a lifesaver," said Donde Plowman, College of Business Administration dean at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, which charges business and engineering majors $50 more a credit. "We can be excited for the future."
The money at Nebraska paid to create a career center, renovate a student lounge and hire an additional academic adviser. The college is also hiring new faculty.
Differential Tuition

Some schools that have proposed differential tuition:
• University of Florida
• Florida State University
• University of Maryland – College Park
• Santa Monica College
• University of Minnesota
• University of Buffalo
• Stony Brook University
• Binghamton University
• University at Albany
• University of California – Berkeley
• University of California – Los Angeles


Some schools that have approved differential tuition:
• South Dakota State University
• University of South Dakota
• South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
• University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Some worry that higher tuition will put off low-income students.
 
I think it is a smart idea honestly. Differential pricing. I would like to see tuition prices tied to the market though.

1. You can charge more for kids to enroll in majors with higher starting salaries and higher demand and reduce prices for those in low paying majors to help keep Cohort Default Rates (CDR) down

2. You can charge more for kids to enroll in majors with low demand as a way to discourage kids from majoring in those fields.
 

I think its a bad idea. I don't believe any major should be abolished. Education shouldn't be about having a bunch of drones...it should be about pursuing a "passion" also. Maybe that's why you have so many that have dropped out with no degrees...lack of passion for the subject matter in the first place. Chasing paper instead of paper chasing what's truly important to them.
 
I hate the idea. It could backfire and steer students away from STEM and other critical need majors.
 
Here's a thought, if a person majoring in the medical field, who already pay high tuition cost, have to pay a higher tuition cost, will just pass it on to their patients.
Likewise those students who've paid more for their tuition would only expect more when they go into the job market. Like jag4life, I can see this backfiring. And I agree with CT majors with lower demand should not be charged more as a way to discourage or eliminate it. We all dont need to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc, etc. We still need history majors, English majors, art majors, etc, etc.
 
What about charging less for those low demand majors? My big fear is that it would push people away from STEM.

The argument for charging more for low demand majors makes more sense though. Taxpayers subsidize a lot of educational expenses. If the market value of Art of the market value of an Engineering degree are drastically different, should they receive the same Govt subsidy? Taxpayers probably won't see the same ROI. I think the argument that ROI be considered whenever taxpayer money is involved is a relevant argument.
 
Pops what you fail to realize is that everyone is not born to be a engineer. As someone who has been in this field for 20 years, I see many young people who should have considered other areas. They have no problem solving skills or can't think out of the box with ideas. School just teaches you the basics, to be a engineer and survive in this filed one must have critical thinking skills as well as common sense. Many leave this filed after 5 years because they can't hack it.
What about charging less for those low demand majors? My big fear is that it would push people away from STEM.

The argument for charging more for low demand majors makes more sense though. Taxpayers subsidize a lot of educational expenses. If the market value of Art of the market value of an Engineering degree are drastically different, should they receive the same Govt subsidy? Taxpayers probably won't see the same ROI. I think the argument that ROI be considered whenever taxpayer money is involved is a relevant argument.
 
But yet, these are the same majors they want more kids to pursue...hell, make it appealing to folks not deter them away from it. :smh:
 
Just using that as an example Cee. I don't think tying Tuition, loans, admissions to the market is a bad idea though.
 
College is a business, folks.

This is more like a car lot.
Kid may want a 2012, Z06 Corvette degree but can only afford a used, 2000 VW Beetle degree. In other words the old saying has came full circle for college.

If you got money, you eat steak every night. If you don't have money, you got to take what scraps fall off the table. :smh:
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vAFQIciWsF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

..
 
Back
Top