A nice little article:
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Charging engineering students more for their education 23
- Thread starter SteelPE
- Start date
-
1
- #21
moltenmetal said:
Spot on.
This concept of artifically raising tuition to curb the supply of engineers is very short-sighted. Raising tuition would be a great deterrent for people to apply to engineering but not to weed-out slackers but to weed-out the under privileged and under supported. Who do you think the slackers are? The well-off kids who haven't had to work for entrance scholarships, who's parents pay their tuition and therefore have no relation to the importance of them taking their schooling seriously. Do you think that an under priveldged kid, who busted her/his butt in high school to get scholarships and then busts her/his butt to work while in class is going to throw that all away by partying? Really?
Furthermore, whether they are under privileged or not has everything to do with their ability to pay for increased tuition but nothing to do with their ability to become a good engineer. In fact, increased tuition would put more pressure on an under privileged kid to take time away from studies to work in order to pay for next year's tuition or this months rent. It could take otherwise good engineers and make them less apt. In the end you've not only not effectively weeded-out the slackers but you've made it more difficult for some that really want to be there and really want to work.
The other solution is to restrict successful applicants based on entrance requirements. It has been argued that this will prevent some good future engineers, that are not so academically proficient, from being accepted. I certainly agree that some students with less than stellar grades can make great engineers (and that the opposite is true). However, this is fine because not all engineering grades are planning on going into field engineering nor are they planning on staying in academia. So entrance requirements should be reflective (and supportive) of the diversity in end goals that an engineering degree can provide. This means that it needs to test the background theoretical knowledge (proficiency in math and physics) as well as "hands-on" knowledge (this is more difficult but for example: spatial awareness, mock "failure analysis", etc). The evaluation should respond well to those that post good marks in both areas but also low marks in one area and very high marks in the other area.
This appears to show very little bias to academic engineers, field engineers, well supported engineers and under privileged engineers. Of course the devil is in the details but it can be done. It certainly does a better job in keeping an engineering education accessible to all people that have the apptitude and desire to excel in engineering.
(and can we please stop being so degrading to all arts subjects by referring to them as basket-weaving. Yes, the engineering cirriculum is tough. Be proud of getting through it but don't let that pride in your efforts turn into arrogance over others. We sit here and complain that engineering doesn't get the respect it deserves, while showing no respect to other fields of study.)
When I went to college, I had one application to submit and then I could decide my major after being there. Today, that same university, has 3 applications to get into my degree. A general university application, an engineering school application and an application to the department within enginering for your field. This weeds out some right away, but it is also somewhat subjective. However, being a private university, they can do that. Also, there are higher fees if you take longer than 4-1/2 years to complete your degree. They charge one rate for upto 80 credit hours of classes and a higher rate for those with over 80. The higher rate is what they charge those in graduate programs and is about 1-1/2 times higher than the normal rate.
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
ManifestDestiny
Automotive
Well said rconnor
Yeah, what you refer to is the HECS loan (higher education contribution scheme) provided by the Australian government. Its interest free, but it is indexed for inflation each year. The taxation office starts adding your repayments to your income tax once you reach $44,000.
Almost all of our universities are public and the majority of their funding comes from the government, unlike the US which has a mix of public and private with the UC's and ivy league and all that. As such, the government placed a "cap" on the number of HECS available seats offered for each course at the respective university, say bachelor of engineering at university X will admit 1000 HECS students for the 2014 year. If your wealthy enough, you can just pay the fees up front, international students are ineligible.
As almost 90% of australian students are HECS students, this worked well as the numbers were relatively controlled by targets. However, in 2011 the government, in all their infinite wisdom wearing rose tinted glasses, took the caps on enrolments away in favour of a "demand driven system", meaning a degree could be filled with an infinite amount of people if they got in. There was a reason for it though, 6 months later they also announced huge cut backs to university funding. So, naturally, what have the uni's done in the last 2 years? Let every tom dick and harry in of course! Many of the older academic staff are worried that courses are being dumbed down and entry limits lowered in an effort to get bums on seats and thus more $$. Im pretty sure last year was a record year for engineering enrolments. Going by the statistics, half of them will make it to graduation, but the end result is still more engineers than what our economy needs. Like the US, we also have a mythical "engineering shortage" that the media and big business like to pedal. The outlook is just downright scary for those in non science fields like law, finance and business, teaching and nursing, which are already at saturation point.
Follow the way of the dodo...
zdas04 said:
Yeah, what you refer to is the HECS loan (higher education contribution scheme) provided by the Australian government. Its interest free, but it is indexed for inflation each year. The taxation office starts adding your repayments to your income tax once you reach $44,000.
Almost all of our universities are public and the majority of their funding comes from the government, unlike the US which has a mix of public and private with the UC's and ivy league and all that. As such, the government placed a "cap" on the number of HECS available seats offered for each course at the respective university, say bachelor of engineering at university X will admit 1000 HECS students for the 2014 year. If your wealthy enough, you can just pay the fees up front, international students are ineligible.
As almost 90% of australian students are HECS students, this worked well as the numbers were relatively controlled by targets. However, in 2011 the government, in all their infinite wisdom wearing rose tinted glasses, took the caps on enrolments away in favour of a "demand driven system", meaning a degree could be filled with an infinite amount of people if they got in. There was a reason for it though, 6 months later they also announced huge cut backs to university funding. So, naturally, what have the uni's done in the last 2 years? Let every tom dick and harry in of course! Many of the older academic staff are worried that courses are being dumbed down and entry limits lowered in an effort to get bums on seats and thus more $$. Im pretty sure last year was a record year for engineering enrolments. Going by the statistics, half of them will make it to graduation, but the end result is still more engineers than what our economy needs. Like the US, we also have a mythical "engineering shortage" that the media and big business like to pedal. The outlook is just downright scary for those in non science fields like law, finance and business, teaching and nursing, which are already at saturation point.
Follow the way of the dodo...
moltenmetal
Chemical
Oh man, we need that Australian loans/grants system in Canada. It p*sses me off greatly to see highly trained individuals, like my high school classmate the neurosurgeon, ditch the country for greater income in the 'States the minute they complete their training, before we get a crack at obtaining a return on our investment of public money in educating them. I believe in public education, but it definitely needs to be a two-way street.
What we have at the moment is an oversupply of entry-level candidates in everything except professions like medicine which control their admissions rates. That makes things tough, as you can't blame someone for leaving if, unlike my neurosurgeon classmate, there is no opportunity at home to work in your chosen profession. He had plenty- he just went where the cash was, to a nation which spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare whereas we spend only 11%.
What we have at the moment is an oversupply of entry-level candidates in everything except professions like medicine which control their admissions rates. That makes things tough, as you can't blame someone for leaving if, unlike my neurosurgeon classmate, there is no opportunity at home to work in your chosen profession. He had plenty- he just went where the cash was, to a nation which spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare whereas we spend only 11%.
moltenmetal. the sting in the tail is that if the student decides to work overseas then the HECS fee cannot be applied. Your mate, the neurosurgeon, wouldn't have to pay. It is taken out of the Australian tax system and no other.
I still do believe it is one of the better systems around. For the under advantaged it gives them a bootstrap and a means to get a degree without finding themselves in a pernicious situation.
I still do believe it is one of the better systems around. For the under advantaged it gives them a bootstrap and a means to get a degree without finding themselves in a pernicious situation.
SomptingGuy
Automotive
After decades of free education for all, tution fees crept into our (UK) university education system, but were capped (subsidised) at something like £3k/year for all subjects. That cap was recently raised to £9k for some "exceptional" cases. So every course everywhere now costs £9k/year, from humanities in some minor school in the middle of nowhere to medicine/engineering in our top, world-class universities. Students can currently get open-ended interest-free loans, only repayable when earnings reach a certain threshold. But caps and thresholds have a tendency to change for the worse once they are established.
A better deal than some countries. But there are newspaper articles about potential UK students deciding to spend their money elsewhere now as there is no financial incentive to study at home.
- Steve
A better deal than some countries. But there are newspaper articles about potential UK students deciding to spend their money elsewhere now as there is no financial incentive to study at home.
- Steve
"as there is no financial incentive to study at home" ... usually ('ere in canada) overseas students are charged Way more than local students.
you'd think that university education was like any other service ... higher quality providers (better schools) can charge more, lower quality charge less. it seems that most countries have done a better job of this (costs of tertiary education) than the US.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
you'd think that university education was like any other service ... higher quality providers (better schools) can charge more, lower quality charge less. it seems that most countries have done a better job of this (costs of tertiary education) than the US.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
sibeen,
The way the Australian system was explained to me is that if you don't file taxes in any year prior to paying off your education, then the remaining amount reverts to a standard interest-bearing loan. You would have to get a hell of an offer outside the country for that to make sense (i.e., going from you regular tax bill covering your loan to having to pay taxes and the loan). I have the feeling that if you blow off the loan payments it would be really expensive to ever return to the country.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
The way the Australian system was explained to me is that if you don't file taxes in any year prior to paying off your education, then the remaining amount reverts to a standard interest-bearing loan. You would have to get a hell of an offer outside the country for that to make sense (i.e., going from you regular tax bill covering your loan to having to pay taxes and the loan). I have the feeling that if you blow off the loan payments it would be really expensive to ever return to the country.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
I admit to not being a genius on university administration, but unless something has radically changed with engineering in the last two hundred years, I fail to see why any university would suddenly need to "charge more" for engineering degrees. Absent some major change in the discipline requiring a major retooling of schools to teach it, I think it would just be a ploy to separate even more funds from the student/parents/government. Of course my conclusion might differ if what they are proposing is discounts to other programs rather than a tuition increase for engineering, but even that may be just a "back door" way to establish the legitimacy of tuition differences. Any genuine differences can already be handled by things like lab fees and textbook costs, and in fact those differentiators are already in place.
"why any university would suddenly need to "charge more" for engineering degrees" ... unrelated to the cost of supplying the education ... if the demand for engineering degrees has increased, out-striping supply, so the price the market will bear will go up.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
-
1
- #32
Are you freaking kidding me? (article)
Wow.
Here's an idea, how about people who are going to college getting useless degrees instead QUIT GOING TO COLLEGE. I went to college to get a degree that had a job at the end of it. That every nitwit in the country went to college on federally subsidized debt to get degrees of zero worth is the actual problem, not that engineering degrees are too cheap.
Wow.
This just burns me up.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
Wow.
Here's an idea, how about people who are going to college getting useless degrees instead QUIT GOING TO COLLEGE. I went to college to get a degree that had a job at the end of it. That every nitwit in the country went to college on federally subsidized debt to get degrees of zero worth is the actual problem, not that engineering degrees are too cheap.
Wow.
This just burns me up.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
ChristopherWalken
Electrical
This is an interesting link:
Is the point to lower the rate of return on an engineering degree to a point where it isn't even an attractive degree? This is on top of the fact that the U.S raised the H1-B by over 60% in a poor economy, which means that wages will be suppressed due to the fact that H1-B workers are abused since they aren't mobile because they require corporate sponsorship. So, they want to increase the tutition for engineering degrees while at the same time making huge increases in the H1-B quota. Wages will be suppressed, less U.S citizens go into engineering due to wages and tutition, those in engineering are competeting with those without huge debt, and industry screams even more about a shortage.
Is the point to lower the rate of return on an engineering degree to a point where it isn't even an attractive degree? This is on top of the fact that the U.S raised the H1-B by over 60% in a poor economy, which means that wages will be suppressed due to the fact that H1-B workers are abused since they aren't mobile because they require corporate sponsorship. So, they want to increase the tutition for engineering degrees while at the same time making huge increases in the H1-B quota. Wages will be suppressed, less U.S citizens go into engineering due to wages and tutition, those in engineering are competeting with those without huge debt, and industry screams even more about a shortage.
rb1957, I believe I see your point. However, the operative sentence on which I based my remarks was, "Why does a student majoring in English have to pay the same tuition as an engineering student with much higher earning potential?" You are correct about supply and demand, and if the demand has radically increased and the market will bear the price I can certainly understand.
However, I am concerned about the phrase "...higher earning potential..." In a free market, the customers who want the engineering services determine what they will pay based upon how bad they want it. But who is to be the determinant of the correct level of income to specify as the "earning potential" for any one discipline? While you are correct that supply and demand is (or in capitalist economic theory, should be) determined by the market, I worry that earning potential might be determined by some government or academic committee.
My specific fear is suppose a government/academic committee sets earning potential levels and meets every six months to review and adjust the levels. Then by definition the actual market rate would be disconnected from the mandated earning potential for 179 out of 180 days each half year. And would one table of "earning potential" parameters be able to account for differences in real earnings between, for example, engineering in Yunnan province China as compared to Frankfurt, Germany? What government or academic committee would be able to determine where the engineering students might actually work before they assign an earning potential factor?
I hope that provides additional information so you can undertand my concern.
However, I am concerned about the phrase "...higher earning potential..." In a free market, the customers who want the engineering services determine what they will pay based upon how bad they want it. But who is to be the determinant of the correct level of income to specify as the "earning potential" for any one discipline? While you are correct that supply and demand is (or in capitalist economic theory, should be) determined by the market, I worry that earning potential might be determined by some government or academic committee.
My specific fear is suppose a government/academic committee sets earning potential levels and meets every six months to review and adjust the levels. Then by definition the actual market rate would be disconnected from the mandated earning potential for 179 out of 180 days each half year. And would one table of "earning potential" parameters be able to account for differences in real earnings between, for example, engineering in Yunnan province China as compared to Frankfurt, Germany? What government or academic committee would be able to determine where the engineering students might actually work before they assign an earning potential factor?
I hope that provides additional information so you can undertand my concern.
So someone that feels deeply passionate about the arts, is willing to work hard and is willing to accept that the employability of their degree is limited but will make it work, is “misdirected” and “under-useful”?
Truly “misdirected” people are those that go into a field of study that go against their own passions. They go into law because Dad was a lawyer (despite hating law), they go into business because they feel they can make the most money there (despite hating business), they go into engineering because the odds of getting a job are high (despite hating engineering). Often these people scuff at and degrade those arts majors that do what they love, as some form of self-justification of their unhappiness.
I understand most of these anti-arts comments are meant to be tongue-in-cheek but if we have an issue with the current state of engineering, let’s not use the arts (or any other field of study) as a (defenseless) whipping boy of our frustrations when it has very little (to nothing) to do with those issues.
Truly “misdirected” people are those that go into a field of study that go against their own passions. They go into law because Dad was a lawyer (despite hating law), they go into business because they feel they can make the most money there (despite hating business), they go into engineering because the odds of getting a job are high (despite hating engineering). Often these people scuff at and degrade those arts majors that do what they love, as some form of self-justification of their unhappiness.
I understand most of these anti-arts comments are meant to be tongue-in-cheek but if we have an issue with the current state of engineering, let’s not use the arts (or any other field of study) as a (defenseless) whipping boy of our frustrations when it has very little (to nothing) to do with those issues.
Passion is passion. No one could have kept me from the career I ended up in. I know an interior design professional with the same passion. For her the art history and underwater basket weaving courses fueled her passion. I got no problem with passion. My problem comes in when someone is occupying Wall Street to complain that no one has given them a job with BA degree and a 1.2 GPA after 15 years in SUNY studying Film Appreciation. I heard one of these chooms on TV talking about having worked every bit as hard (and even longer) than an MD and the only job she could find is clerical. Not many people need someone with a BA in Film Appreciation (that may not have been the actual degree, but she did reference that field several times in the interview) who took 15 years to finish with a "D" average. These entitled twits are giving a bad name to the process of getting a college degree. If her passion was Film Appreciation, then she should have stopped and thought about how to parlay that passion into a career about 14 years earlier. It wasn't. Her passion was being a university student. She deserves all the disdain that The Tick or anyone else can heap upon her.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
Hurricanes
Mechanical
I don't really understand the reaction to this. I went to uni in NZ. A Bachelor of Engineering was around three times the cost of a BA. Why? We had labs and software requirements which ate up more cash than what you'd need for a typical BA course.
We also did straight engineering. My course work was fluids, thermo, solid mechanics etc, etc. No gender studies or the like. You could always do a double degree if the arts really interested you.
We also did straight engineering. My course work was fluids, thermo, solid mechanics etc, etc. No gender studies or the like. You could always do a double degree if the arts really interested you.
-
1
- #39
I find it humorous that the media went literally APE when several governors floated the opposite idea - of reducing tuition to engineering fields to try and get more people to switch towards meaningful degrees:
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
-
1
- #40
You can’t honestly hold the view that the Occupy Wall Street movement was about “entitled twits” demanding hand-outs; it’s absurdly, inexcusably uninformed. Now if you want to actually educate yourself on the issue (instead of clinging to some random, non-referenced anecdote), here’s a start.. “In the age of information, ignorance is a choice” – Donny Miller.
Beyond their naivety, these comments also serve no purpose in addressing issues related to engineering. If you want to make a case that “basket-weaving” classes for “misdirected”, “entitled twits” have a negative impact on the engineering profession, fine, we can discuss that. But, here’s the kicker, you actually have to articulate your argument in a logical way.
Furthermore, did people actually read the article or just the headline/first sentence? The headline and first sentence are just questions to elicit conversation. The article talks, almost exclusively, about the negative impacts of differential price structures (lower enrollment, specially in minority groups and that the data itself is rather spurious). All in all, it’s an inane article...but that doesn’t mean we can’t do a better job of discussing the topic.
Beyond their naivety, these comments also serve no purpose in addressing issues related to engineering. If you want to make a case that “basket-weaving” classes for “misdirected”, “entitled twits” have a negative impact on the engineering profession, fine, we can discuss that. But, here’s the kicker, you actually have to articulate your argument in a logical way.
Furthermore, did people actually read the article or just the headline/first sentence? The headline and first sentence are just questions to elicit conversation. The article talks, almost exclusively, about the negative impacts of differential price structures (lower enrollment, specially in minority groups and that the data itself is rather spurious). All in all, it’s an inane article...but that doesn’t mean we can’t do a better job of discussing the topic.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Article
- Locked
- Question