> Why is the government, and by extention you and me, supporting liberal arts degrees that will do little to support economic growth? As a taxpayer, I'm happy

> Why is the government, and by extention you and me, supporting liberal arts degrees that will do little to support economic growth? As a taxpayer, I'm happy to support liberal arts even if it doesn't lead to economic growth. But you can't convince me that it should cost $200k to get a degree in it; that's just bananas. There's no way it costs that much to provide that service (even with a healthy profit margin on top). They must be subsidizing other costs with that money. On a related note, I think the American model of charging per-credit-unit, regardless of what you study, is illogical (maybe it's not the same at all universities). It might make things easier for the bursar's office but it just doesn't compute that a credit hour of an aerospace engineering course (with all that expensive lab equipment) should cost the same as a credit hour of American poetry. Or that a 200-student introductory chemistry class costs the same as an advanced 20-student organic chemistry class.