Should an undergraduate studying business pay more than one studying psychology? Should a journalism degree cost more than one in literature? More and more public universities, confronting rising costs and lagging state support, have decided that the answers may be yes and yes.What's odd about this is ASU's decision to increase revenue from journalism, not exactly a bastion of high income potential.
Starting this fall, juniors and seniors pursuing an undergraduate major in the business school at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, will pay $500 more each semester than classmates. The University of Nebraska last year began charging engineering students a $40 premium for each hour of class credit.
And Arizona State University this fall will phase in for upperclassmen in the journalism school a $250 per semester charge above the basic $2,411 tuition for in-state students.
The tiering of tuition makes logical sense in some ways--students pay what the market will bear, ie graduate programs in business or law. I believe Cornell has a very stratified tuition structure because of some of its schools are publicly supported and some aren't.
But in another sense, particularly for undergraduate education, should the state be making that big of a market stance? If the theory is that majors with high future higher salaries can charge higher tuitions (which makes ASU's journalism charge baffling), does that become a disincentive to increase enrollment, specifically in engineering/the sciences (and math and technology (STEM))?
There are numerous reports, studies, papers, groups advocating for increased student enrollments in STEM for the sake of maintaining US eminence in innovation and technological competitiveness. Wouldn't charging STEM majors hurt that effort?
Does it change things if that extra revenue flows back into the department(s) to improve faculty quality, laboratory resources, etc?
Posts
1 comment:
I guess how I feel about it depends on the purpose/rationale of charging more for some degrees than others. If some programs cost more to provide - expensive professorships, expensive lab materials, more support staff required - then why sholdn't that cost be borne by those who are trying to benefit from those programs? It is basically a user fee that minimizes expenses for those who *don't* use those programs.
And it might be fine, too, if the theory is that education leading to high-dollar employment can be billed at a higher rate since those who use the program will be better able to afford it. Again, though, those who use less costly programs are the beneficiaries - assuming all programs have similar costs, the expensive programs subsidize the cost of the cheap programs, just like with first-class and coach airfares.
I guess the question is, do you prefer the highest ideal of the institution to be equality or low pricing, when those two are not in harmony?
Post a Comment