State university officials in Florida have been discussing the idea of charging students more for getting degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, though universities don’t have total power to set differentiated tuition rates depending on the programs. Gov. Rick Scott is pushing for more students in the state to graduate with these so-called STEM degrees, without increasing state money to universities.
Part of the logic behind increasing tuition specifically for STEM degrees is that these students are probably going to make more money after graduation than their fellow students majoring in English, art history and the like, that they can afford to pay more up front for their education.
Rep. Bill Proctor, R-St. Augustine, said he does not think this will discourage students from seeking STEM degrees, while Florida State University President Eric Barron said, “I would charge STEM students more and deliver something better,” according to a recent report from the Tampa Bay Times.
But Florida universities will have to clearly define this “something better,” and insure that it truly is better, before they should broach the idea of making students pay more for a vague ideal. The state should not expect students to pay higher tuition—in-state tuition, especially—for a Florida school with an unknown or unproven STEM program, when schools like Georgia Tech or MIT have better-proven track records at possibly comparable costs.
Assuming a student majoring in STEM will make more upon gradation and can therefore afford higher tuition and more debt is a risky gamble—one that law schools have been taking flack for. Law schools have been criticized for accepting too many students, including ones that critics argue they know are unlikely to be able to pay off their loans or find gainful employment post-graduation. The issue prompted two Yale law professors to propose that students “with less than a 50 percent chance of passing the bar within three years of graduation should be required to sign a special waiver that he has been informed about the riskiness of his education investment,” according to a November 2011 Slate article.
While reports keep appearing that there are more law schools and law school graduates than necessary in the U.S., but the need for STEM graduates is expected to continue growing, the law school dilemma does serve as a cross-disciplinary cautionary tale against preemptively charging students for the lavish careers the state hopes they will have as a result of meeting political demand for more science and engineering majors.
While no bills are pending and no formal action has been taken on this proposal, the talk alone contributes to the often mixed message of higher education. Some laud higher education as a time to explore passions, whether mainstream or out-of-the-box, in the hopes that this passion will prompt hard work that will eventually pay off. This proposal presents higher education as a means to an end—students’ means for politicians’ ends.
Before suggesting students pay more for the governor’s agenda, the university system should sort out its messages and decide what it wants for and expects of not just the economy, but the students they’re burdening it with.
