4 ms·

> STEM students were charges several thousand dollars a year more than humanities students. That actually seems more equitable to me than what happens at some

> STEM students were charges several thousand dollars a year more than humanities students. That actually seems more equitable to me than what happens at some other schools, where everyone pays the same credit-hour rate no matter what course they take. Teaching STEM courses, intuitively, seems like it should cost more. The pool of professors and TAs is smaller, a lot of courses call for lab equipment and the maintaining of labs and so on. And students have higher earning potential upon graduation and should, in theory, be willing to pay more. Many humanities courses in contrast (literature, philosophy, sociology, political science, languages) can be taught quite cheaply, with labor being the only major expense. It seems unfair that humanities degrees (which are also worth less than STEM degrees on the job market) should be anywhere near as expensive as STEM degrees.

Kadin 9y ago
The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. This seems a much better solution than raising the cost per credit hour. Also, some STEM-type departments get grants (public and private) at a rate that's much greater than liberal arts departments, and grant recipients have to tithe back a large portion to their parent institution in a way that defrays facilities costs, etc. So there are other sources of income besides student tuition. If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  > The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. That's fair. Just that (again, my experience) you were charged a fixed amount in lab fees every semester regardless of courses. It's probably varies between unis. > If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE. I don't know if you need to treat each department as a P&L center. There are bound to be departments that are important but perennially loss-making and knowledge shouldn't be reduced to just dollars and cents. But there does need to be more fairness in the money charged to students. The alternative is that humanities students (with lower earning potential) are subsidizing STEM students (higher earning potential). I know which one I prefer from a fairness point-of-view (speaking as a former STEM student).
  - sethrin 9y ago
    Why are we considering universities in terms of the earning potential of their graduates? University is not job training. If anthropology students are being encouraged to continue in academia, it's because that's the purpose of that institution. From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. What you probably shouldn't do is admit that it doesn't make sense to try to compare the economic value of knowing Milton vs Maxwell, and then suggest doing so anyway.
    - jogjayr 9y ago
      > From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Some companies also pay tuition for employees going to school. > Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. Great Britain doesn't have free higher education. "Make higher education free" is certainly a worthy goal. But there needs to be some debate for how to get there. "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket. Something to consider: German universities are free to everyone who passes an entrance exam [1]. But German universities also spend half the amount per student per year as US universities[2]. $10,164 vs $23,064. They also spend more on R&D proportionally, and in absolute terms per student-year. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_... 2. https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf (page 215)
      - sethrin 9y ago
        > They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Seriously? > "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket. "I've got mine, fuck you Jack" is a popular sentiment across all age brackets, but charity and compassion are also not age-restricted.
- Fomite 9y ago
  Ironically, I have been in several research heavy departments that have been looking enviously at the teaching-heavy, undergraduate centric departments with steady and predictable funding streams. Two things to keep in mind: 1. Grants are difficult to get. The pay lines at both the NIH and NSF have been decreasing for quite some time, and even successful departments don't have the feeling of swimming in cash. 2. Overhead rates (the "tithes" you mention) do not necessarily cover the full administrative cost of a research-heavy department (especially things like capital construction). There are certainly institutions that have built a great deal of monetary success on their research programs, but not as many as one might think. This is why, for example, in my field we're seeing a proliferation of MPH programs - student tuition is a more reliable income stream.

Kadin 9y ago

The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. This seems a much better solution than raising the cost per credit hour. Also, some STEM-type departments get grants (public and private) at a rate that's much greater than liberal arts departments, and grant recipients have to tithe back a large portion to their parent institution in a way that defrays facilities costs, etc. So there are other sources of income besides student tuition. If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE.

jogjayr 9y ago
> The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. That's fair. Just that (again, my experience) you were charged a fixed amount in lab fees every semester regardless of courses. It's probably varies between unis. > If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE. I don't know if you need to treat each department as a P&L center. There are bound to be departments that are important but perennially loss-making and knowledge shouldn't be reduced to just dollars and cents. But there does need to be more fairness in the money charged to students. The alternative is that humanities students (with lower earning potential) are subsidizing STEM students (higher earning potential). I know which one I prefer from a fairness point-of-view (speaking as a former STEM student).
- sethrin 9y ago
  Why are we considering universities in terms of the earning potential of their graduates? University is not job training. If anthropology students are being encouraged to continue in academia, it's because that's the purpose of that institution. From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. What you probably shouldn't do is admit that it doesn't make sense to try to compare the economic value of knowing Milton vs Maxwell, and then suggest doing so anyway.
  - jogjayr 9y ago
    > From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Some companies also pay tuition for employees going to school. > Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. Great Britain doesn't have free higher education. "Make higher education free" is certainly a worthy goal. But there needs to be some debate for how to get there. "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket. Something to consider: German universities are free to everyone who passes an entrance exam [1]. But German universities also spend half the amount per student per year as US universities[2]. $10,164 vs $23,064. They also spend more on R&D proportionally, and in absolute terms per student-year. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_... 2. https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf (page 215)
    - sethrin 9y ago
      > They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Seriously? > "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket. "I've got mine, fuck you Jack" is a popular sentiment across all age brackets, but charity and compassion are also not age-restricted.
Fomite 9y ago
Ironically, I have been in several research heavy departments that have been looking enviously at the teaching-heavy, undergraduate centric departments with steady and predictable funding streams. Two things to keep in mind: 1. Grants are difficult to get. The pay lines at both the NIH and NSF have been decreasing for quite some time, and even successful departments don't have the feeling of swimming in cash. 2. Overhead rates (the "tithes" you mention) do not necessarily cover the full administrative cost of a research-heavy department (especially things like capital construction). There are certainly institutions that have built a great deal of monetary success on their research programs, but not as many as one might think. This is why, for example, in my field we're seeing a proliferation of MPH programs - student tuition is a more reliable income stream.