<p>Students at Rutgers University in NJ are charged more for the following majors:</p>
<p>Students at the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Pharmacy, and Engineering should add $1,054 for tuition. Students at School of Business-Camden, Rutgers Business School-Newark, and Rutgers Business School-New Brunswick should add $286 for tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Better that that…He’s a sophomore in a 3/2 program. There are about a dozen of them now, primarily in Pennsylvania. He’s at Gannon Univ. And they keep the kids on track so there wont be an extra year. I’d rather pay a little more on the front end.</p>
<p>Where I have seen this differential, and there is no separate engineering school or business school, it only applies to juniors and seniors – i.e., relatively certain majors, beyond initial requirements. I suppose if there is a separate school with separate admissions, there could be different tuition charged from Day 1, but I don’t think that is how the UCs are structured.</p>
<p>I doubt a premium on engineering and business degrees, versus all other degrees, could really be justified on a cost analysis. There are probably pretty heavy costs associated with physics and biology programs, too. This seems like Price Discrimination 101 to me – charging more to people who would be willing to pay more, because what they are receiving has a higher present value than what the average English major gets. (For every English major who will be a successful lawyer in five years, there are three Starbucks baristas and one who went to law school but doesn’t have a job. That’s hyperbole, of course, but I bet your engineering major is making more than my English major, and she was really, really lucky to get a job.)</p>
<p>The stats from the study of which school’s graduates earn the most money bears you out, JHS. A lot of tech oriented schools are on that list much higher than they rank in other rankings. </p>
<p>I think they’re simply looking to raise the price where the elasticity of demand is perceived to be lowest. Its a good guess, but it won’t generate good will from the e school grads.</p>
<p>
Many of the UCs do have a ‘School of Engineering’ that requires either its own admission or at least a second level of admission in order to attend. For UCLA it’s the Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science. For UCSD it’s the Jacobs School of Engineering. UCB has the College of Engineering. For at least UCLA and UCSD, the schools of engineering have received significant funds from benefactors (hence their names) and significant donations from companies so it’s hard to say what the incremental cost of the engineering degree really is. It may seem more costly on the surface but when the buildings, computers, networks, etc. are paid for by various benefactors I’m not sure what the bottom line actually is. </p>
<p>I know that UCLA does have some extra ‘fees’ for the school of engineering but they’re probably not as high as what they’d propose in a separate tuition cost.</p>
<p>^^agree with UCdad’s earlier point: why not charge additional fees to premeds, or at least a separate lab fee since those lab buildings are a lot more expensive than a lecture hall with 150 history majors.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>good question. </p>
<p>My nephew is at Vanderbilt. There is an extra charge for being a Engineering major (I think the charge is larger for freshman year). So, what if a kid changes to Engineering after freshman year.</p>
<p>Since Engineering programs often have a set sequence of classes, I wonder if it’s almost impossible to come into the program later??? Anyone know??? What if a kid enters as “undeclared major”???</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I guess to “catch” all students who take “expensive classes,” a separate fee needs to be added for each of the “pricey” classes. </p>
<p>That is what one of my friends’ kids’ school is starting to do. After her kid registered online for his classes, she went to the “Pay student bill” link and there were these line items of course charges. They didn’t add up to much (maybe $120 total), but when collected from thousands of students, I guess it all adds up.</p>
<p>At UCLA at least, most lab classes have materials fees ranging from $20 to $110, so premeds are paying a certain amount more. Classes in the school of Engineering are $7 more per unit, which would come close to $1000 overall.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At UCLA (which has a separate school, as said above), you can apply to transfer in if you’ve taken certain classes and have a competitive GPA while in college. Undeclared majors would be in L&S, so same rules apply. I would guess most schools that are separate have a similar system.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s not? Since when did a university education become solely about jobs? You seem to have confused universities with trade schools. Universities provide society with a heck of a lot more than just the next batch of tax-paying workers.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>The reason tax-payers pay for state schools is to invest in the future…invest in progress…and, yes, to invest in students to provide society with future employed tax-payers. </p>
<p>Believe me, if there ever came a time when graduates from PUBLIC universities were no longer getting educated for jobs, the tax-payers would revolt and insist that students pay for these “hobbies” themselves. </p>
<p>Private universities can have more “lofty” goals and educate (or just fool around) just for the sake of educating (or for the sake of nothing)…LOL…but when you’re using tax-payer dollars, it’s a whole different ball game. 
</p>
<p>Tax-payer money must be respected…it is hard-earned and precious.</p>
<p>As noted by others already, the logic that charging higher tuition for students who are studying in areas that expect to get higher paying jobs is faulty. My son who is studying engineering at a UC isn’t paying for his tuition, his parents are. </p>
<p>Why not make the fees commensurate with the apparent financial benefit reaped? For example 1% of your gross income for the 1st 10 years after graduation. 2% if you don’t graduate, but drop out.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Good point…I wonder if they assume that many/most students are paying for school with student loans???</p>
<p>UC’s should just charge a fee/surcharge for any class that is a “costly class” (has pricey lab equipment, pricey computers, etc).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I agree that the job prospects justification is poor, I don’t think raising tuition for Engineering is as a whole unjustified. As mentioned, faculty wages and class costs are both higher. Furthermore, engineering students are able to take classes that are blocked off from other colleges in the University. For instance, as a math major, I can’t take any classes offered by the Computer Science department. A CS major OTOH, can take any math class they’ve satisfied the prereqs for.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Is that because the engineering program is impacted? And/or, do the student follow a curriculum path, and therefore the school has to carefully plan out classes to accomodate a set number of Eng students taking certain classes in the fall and certain classes in the spring?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The role of university, public or private, is to invest in the intellectual development of the students - which <em>sometimes</em> results in acquiring specific job skills but often does not. </p>
<p>I mean what job does say an undergrad degree in Philosophy specifically prepare you for?
[UC</a> Berkeley - Department of Philosophy](<a href=“http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/undergraduate/overview]UC”>UC Berkeley - Department of Philosophy)</p>
<p>Or Classics?
<a href=“http://classics.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate/[/url]”>http://classics.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate/</a></p>
<p>These things, and many more “lofty” majors are being taught at the UCs now and have been from the start. There has been no taxpayer revolt over the point. Because most people apparently understand the value to the growth and advancement of society of having a population pursuing all branches of human knowledge and not just those that directly result in specific job skills and professional certifications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wondering how widespread this is. I knew of upperclass physics majors taking coursework in EE, both labs and lectures. Those were used to satisfy major requirements. The EE labs had much, much nicer equipment than the Physics labs. There were a lot of private donations coming from companies that would eventually hire those EEs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or a pricey professor? Charge more for classes taught by full professors, lots more for superstar professors who are being recruited at other schools, less for those taught by assistant professors. Charge more for classes with only 10-20 students, less for 700 student lecture courses. Charge more if the student wants to utilize the instructor’s office hours, less if they’re willing to confine their questions to just in class. </p>
<p>It’s an awfully slippery slope we’re heading towards.</p>
<p>^^Yup. That’s the new business model of the airlines - instead of charging for the trip they charge for airfare, charge for the baggage, charge for the meal, charge for the soda, charge for the pillow, charge for the dry-roasted peanuts, etc. Apparently the unversities are taking notice of this approach.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Coureur</p>
<p>Philosophy majors can do many, many things because of their strong thinking and reasoning abilities. My son is minoring in philosophy. Philosophy majors score higher on the LSATs than most majors do (I think only Math, Engineering, and Physics majors score higher on average). If more students at least minored (or double majored) in Philosophy, we’d have a lot more critical-thinking individuals in all walks of life. That said, Philosophy is often a pre-law track.</p>
<p>Classics majors are generally preparing to be teachers, writers, book editors, or profs.</p>
<p>And…btw…From The New York Times Magazine Sept 24, 2009</p>
<p>“Earnings may be a flawed measure of an education’s value, but they’re about the only tangible measure we have.”</p>
<p>So, I’m not the only one who thinks earning potential matters, and I was only referring to public funded colleges. The article doesn’t make that distinction at all. </p>
<p>I do think that some very limited income potential majors could be limited to be minors on many campuses (reserving their majors for a select few public campuses to educate future profs…LOL…)</p>