Tuition as a function of Degree Plan

[sixpackshaker]

-didn't read the whole thread.

I don't like the idea of this, because it could push underachievers or people without the talent to succeed into fields where they can do more harm than good. Or into fields where they will not be pleased with their career.

 

[Necronic]

We talked about this on the last page.

First off there is the implication that a lot of the people in non-STEM are underachievers, or unable to do the work, which I disagree with. There are many high achievers in other fields that may choose STEM instead if there is an upfront advantage as opposed to an ephemeral long term advantage (most people simply can't plan that well, consider the so-called "tax hike".)

Second you're assuming that the universities/processors will be graduatin lower quality students, which I disagree with. If there's one thing I've come to appreciate about science professors it's that they have little problem with failin large portions of their classes. That said the universities should not be encouraged to artificially inflate its graduation rates to show success in the program, that could be devastating.

Third you're implying that the people who are in STEM now are more likely to have long term career satisfaction than other potential students, because they will be there for purely financial reasons. In my experience this is already true. Many STEM majors (more than any other field at least) are there purely due to financial planning or family pressure. This can be negative, but the highly effective and highly Asian coworker demographic I have would suggest otherwise.

 

[Eriol]

Second you're assuming that the universities/processors will be graduatin lower quality students, which I disagree with. If there's one thing I've come to appreciate about science professors it's that they have little problem with failin large portions of their classes. That said the universities should not be encouraged to artificially inflate its graduation rates to show success in the program, that could be devastating.

I fully agree with this. It's already happening to a slight degree, in terms of 1st-year "dropout" rates that have been "Addressed" in the worst way possible: making 1st year easier.

To summarize, a university is sometimes measured by the dropout rate of 1st years. It was found that engineering programs had a high 1st-year dropout rate, so they were "directed" to correct it by university administration. But because accreditation requirements did not go down (thank God), what they did is make the 1st year courses easier, but the 2nd year courses were "harder" as a result, so the "weeder" year is 2nd year. This is an improvement to the metric the university wanted. Unfortunately it's harder to move faculties if you only start failing 2 years in. It's a lot easier if after one semester you go "oh shit, this math is f'n impossible, I'll take flower arranging instead!" (No insult intended to people who do that) But after your 3rd or 4th semester of engineering? You already have piled on debt, and thus you feel you have to "keep with it" in that degree, leading to more overall dropouts anyways when they can't cut it in the long run.

So I hope the curriculum isn't being changed, just the costs.