UC may hike tuition for some undergraduate majors
…As part of a plan to plug UC's battered budget, the regents may vote as early as next month on the controversial, tradition-breaking proposal to require engineering undergraduates, along with those studying business, to pay $900 more a year than the rest of the student body. That would be in addition to the $2,514 systemwide fee increase all students are likely to see by next fall.
Revenue-hungry UC officials say the two fields were chosen because salaries for their faculty members are significantly higher than the rest and because students majoring in those subjects tend to land well-paid jobs after graduation….
Evidently, this sort of thing is fairly common in other states.
11 comments:
What about budding philosophical physicists?
Do I pay more?
If I don't, does this mean I'm going to be poor in the future?
Either way: Crap.
Philosophical physicist? You might get slapped with a "what were you thinking?" fee. BTW: time is an illusion. I said that tomorrow.
What are you, a Tralfamagarian?
I've heard of Tralfamadorians (Vonegut--I haven't read him). What are Tralfamagarians? I take it they zip around the time line like heedless a**holes.
my bad. mixed the g's and d's. so narrow-minded to think in terms of time. :)
So, UCs decide that because of the value of professors in Engineering and Business, they should be paid more. It's the administration (probably, they'd say, in respone to the market) making those decisions. And because of that they conclude that students who go through such programs, and, I presume, graduate, are going to earn more than folks in other fields. Therefore, students in engineering and in business should pay more tuition. Curious logic, but not to an administrator perhaps (or at least to some of them).
I read that book (the Vonnegut one). They see in 4-D or something.
I recall that the book was pretty obscure so I don't actually recall much about it.
I think the "What were you thinking?" fee is covered in my book costs by the way. Anyone ever heard of David Malament? That guy is my spacetime teacher - cruel beast - spoke to me in logical fallacies. I actually cried in front of him whilst standing before a whiteboard holding a marker. Ok, no I didn't.
really did BS ok, not really
UC will essentially be giving a cash incentive to people not to major in engineering.
I suppose that a letter to the Register could be composed about how this is an engraved invitation for certain Asian nations to eat our lunch.
Jocularity aside, this move puts short-term desperation ahead of prudent public policy. The National Science Foundation has been warning for a decade that America's ability to field mathematics, science and engineering talent has been seriously compromised and will continue to dwindle. Poor math and science teaching at the K-12 level has already claimed its share of victims; do we really want to kneecap the rest when they get to college?
I would support charging more for Liberal Arts.
No argument? Just naked and absurd opinery? A drive-by louting.
Higher tuition for B-schools is demand-based, not cost-based; it's frequent. Engineering may be more costly to teach, but I think it's still demand-based. Engineering is so competitive the GPA cutoff is insanely high. This is a place they can get away with it.
Post a Comment