<p>"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.</p>
<p>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. And they point out that nearly half of all U.S. public universities have taken similar steps, with many joining the trend recently because state funding for higher education has declined during the recession."</p>
<p>I’m not surprised by this. Engineering majors on other campuses often have to pay an extra fee because their education does cost the school more money. The technology that these students use during their educational process costs a lot of money. I don’t know if their profs cost more money, too, but that may also be a factor.</p>
<p>I don’t know why the increase for business majors and not for - say - chemistry and bio majors.</p>
<p>Frankly, the UCs need to stop fooling around with in-state fees (aka tuition), and just start charging all the in-state kids 15k per year. 15k per year is not too much for a UC school considering how strong those schools are. Those who truly have need could be given grants. Others who can’t pay that much can go to a Cal State.</p>
<p>I can understand why a university might want to charge more for a major because it has to pay the faculty in the area more money. But I don’t think the above reason is a valid one for raising the tuition for those in certain areas.</p>
<p>I think there should be the same tuition at a university, regardless of your undergraduate major.</p>
<p>If cost of educating engineering students is higher (no doubt), yet they get better paying jobs after graduation, maybe the best course of action for colleges to off-set this cost is through alumni gifts. Pay it forward . . .</p>
<p>Probably not a good idea to depend on alumni support to make up the shortfall because alumni gifts are unreliable. And, some UC’s don’t receive strong alumni donations. Berkeley and UCLA might get enough from alumni donations, but UCI and others might not.</p>
<p>I have no problem with pricey majors paying more. But, the overall tuition at the UCs is too low for the quality of education.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And…frankly…if the UCs have majors on their campuses where their graduates DON"T earn a strong salary after graduating, then those majors should be moved to the Cal States. What the heck are we doing spending tons of taxpayer dollars on majors where student don’t earn a good salary after graduating. Let people pursue such majors on their own dime or on donated dollars. </p>
<p>We invest in students because they are our future; they are our future tax-payers. It’s not an investment to educate people in majors that don’t result in good paying jobs.</p>
<p>I guess I meant “pay it forward” to the future generation of graduates.
Do you really think we should use salary as a bench mark? I personally would like bright students to pursue careers in education, for example. I think public education is the very definition of an investment in our collective future!</p>
<p>In Illinois, at the public schools, you have a guaranteed tuition for 4 years. So, as a way to increase tuition dollars, almost all majors now have a special fee on top of tuition.</p>
<p>Frankly, UC isn’t the only system that is raising tuition based on majors. This has been going on at many universities for some time. The reasoning is as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Some majors cost a lot more to get professors or to educate students. Examples of these are med school, business programs ( where professors are very highly paid), engineering programs and law school.</p></li>
<li><p>Some majors can result in higher earnings for their grads,which usually are the above noted majors</p></li>
<li><p>They raise tuition for some majors because they are very popular majors. Thus, UC raises it because it can get away with it. Lets face it, if too many kids are applying for business or medical school, it can be argued that the tuition is too law for the high demand. This can be certainly said for the better schools at UC too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the tuition at places like Berkeley and UCLA aren’t eventually raised disproportionately to that of other campuses due to demand.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Another sneaky thing some colleges are doing is charging a new fee (or increasing an existing fee) for particular classes. </p>
<p>For instance, some schools might tack on a $50 fee for every comp sci or biology class you take; the fee may get increased to $75. Art classes have been doing this for years, but now other classes are doing this, too. My son had an “Arts and Sciences” fee. It wasn’t a lot of money, but it was a new fee.</p>
<p>This whole thing can be misleading because after budgeting your college costs, then you get shocked by these extra fees that can add up each semester.</p>
<p>Oh, I agree with that. But, are there many UNDERgraduate education majors at UCs? That seems to largely be the domain of the Cal States. I’m sure there are some undergrad education majors, but not as many as there are at the Cal States.</p>
<p>I would hate to see the English majors, History majors, the Ethnic Studies majors and all those disciplnes be shed at UCs. To turn UC into giant pre-professional schools would be horrendous, and would certainly ding their public profiles in a dreadful way. The world isn’t all about money. In fact, even money isn’t all about money.</p>
<p>A tier system of COA may have merit-supplemental fees for courses taken. With regard to the OP who presents the idea of eliminating majors that don’t garner the higher earnings after graduation may be missing the point of a liberal arts education offered by our UCs.
(ie-Consider the requirements for acceptance to a UC, and you realize that these students would have their eyes roll back in their heads if they attended a Cal State—much like the difference between a standard English course vs an AP English course.)</p>
<p>^^^
Actually, I think I’m the one who presented the idea…not the OP</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t want all the liberal arts majors to leave the UCs. There are jobs available for them post-graduation.</p>
<p>But…I do think there needs to be some kind of cost analyis for some majors. There are many parents who get upset after paying for a UC education, and their kid graduates in a major where there are no jobs. That’s not an investment for the kid, the parent, or the taxpayer.</p>
<p>So, what if one switches majors mid stream. For example, one spends the first two years as a math/chemistry major and then switches to the more expensive engineering? Is there a back charge? Or, is making up your mind later rewarded by lower tuition in the first two years?</p>
<p>Oh, it’s an investment. It’s an investment in cultural literacy. If students or parents are upset by their own choices, then so be it. Most people understand, though, that the rewards for these pursuits, and the motivation to study them, is not pecuniary. </p>
<p>That might not be something you want to see you tax dollars support, but I doubt you’ll find much company in that. If that’s the aim, then eliminate those programs at community colleges and Cal States, too.</p>
<p>S2’s undergrad major will likely be humanities oriented. Little special equipment or facilities needed outside of a book or two and place to talk. Some majors are simply cheaper to deliver than others so a differential tuition charge is not unreasonable. </p>
<p>If the fee is per course and a certain number of courses are required to earn a degree in an engineering major, students will end up paying the same regardless of when the courses are taken.</p>
<p>It’s long been known that English and pscyh majors subsidize other more technical programs. They pay the same as the physics majors, but cost the college far less.</p>
That’s silly but on par with the mentality that the more one earns the more one should pay for everything.</p>
<p>What about all the humanities and bio students who end up becoming lawyers and doctors which have a high earning potential? Should they pay more for their UG education because of that potential? What about the ones who become investment bankers who might earn even more than doctors? What about the others who become heads of companies? I suppose they could try to have everyone sign an ‘earnings adjustment’ clause (i.e. a financial success tax) when they attend the school whereby if their earmings are above a certain point some number of years after they graduate they’re obliged to pay additional monies to the school. Again, it’s silly to try to adjust the tuition based on potential earnings.</p>
<p>Adjusting tuition based on the cost to provide the services at least has a logical basis. For example, the number of units required to be taken to earn the degree is often higher in engineering than it is for many humanities degrees and if the cost of faculty is significantly higher then that could be a factor as well but is it really significantly higher?</p>
<p>Disclaimer - dad of two UC school of engineering students here.</p>