UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — The UC Board of Regents recently proposed a fee hike separate from the 32-percent one that everyone’s so up in arms over — and this time, they’re not reaching into everyone’s pockets at once.
A $900 tuition hike for upper-division engineering and business students is being discussed as yet another way to close the budget shortfall. Though the proposal was shelved for further study last week, university officials said the plan could still very likely resurface. And with student fees already set to rise an appalling $2,514 next year, the additional increases would amount to more than the average student can bear.
Tying tuition rates to majors is a novel concept for us UC kids, but about half of all public universities across the country charge more for certain academic programs. In 2007, for instance, the University of Wisconsin, Madison began charging an extra $500 for undergraduates pursuing a degree in business administration. Likewise, students in engineering and nursing at Arizona State University pay $300 and $750 more, respectively, per semester.
Supporters of differential tuition costs love to tout the higher median salaries of professors in certain fields. Last year’s National Faculty Survey found that professors in engineering and business management earn, on average, $112,347 and $108,230 a year, respectively. By contrast, the average English literature professor rakes in a comparatively paltry $79,854.
The rationale is simple: Higher operating costs demand that students pay a higher price.
Those supporting the fee increase also claim that its increased annual revenue — projected to be around $10 million, after factoring in $5 million for financial aid — would help retain top-notch faculty and preserve the high standards for which these programs are known.
But against the backdrop of unprecedented lows in state funding and steep student fees, selective tuition increases would do more harm than good. With each passing fee hike, a UC education limits its appeal to prospective students. While the university may need to cut enrollment, admits shouldn’t be tempted to trash admission letters on their own.
Paying an additional $900 a year to major in engineering or business (or, on our campus, only the former, as we lack a business program) could even prevent some students interested in these fields from pursuing them, despite the renown and prestige of specialized programs in these disciplines offered at UC campuses.
It’s true that a degree in mechanical engineering is more advantageous in today’s job market than one in, say, history. But the proposal bypasses other majors that will arguably turn out equally successful graduates. For instance, a degree in the biological and physical sciences — both fields that attract a high volume of students and require a hefty investment of resources to support their curricula — is just as likely to get a student a well-paying job as an engineering or business degree.
The regents’ singling out of engineering and business majors based on generalized assumptions of their potential for post-graduate success is shortsighted, especially given the current recession.
Should this proposal eventually pass, it would also likely cause resentment not only among those students who will be forced to pay more, but those who won’t, too. Because in passing the proposal, the regents would essentially be placing a greater value upon engineering and business programs than the rest.
Engineering programs are especially notorious for the endless list of courses they require students to take before graduation. Because of larger class sizes and fewer course offerings, students are often hard-pressed to complete their degrees within four years, and many stay even longer. With these new fee increases in place, engineering students — who represent about 14 percent of UCSD’s student body — will have a much more expensive way out of college than the rest of us, especially given the common necessity of a fifth year.
Perhaps an additional $900 won’t bring tuition to private-school levels, but it will nevertheless decrease access to the university. Engineering students can’t just tap into the full bank accounts they’re expected to hold in the distant future; they, like their Chaucer-studying peers, are still struggling students when the tuition bills are due.
So while it may seem an easy step out of the deficit, banking on a select group of students to pay more than the rest isn’t the answer — especially given the fact that, in this economy, success isn’t guaranteed for anyone anymore.
Readers can contact Andrew Kim at [email protected].
