Banking on a BA

It’s no secret that Kelley students think oh-so-highly of themselves, nor is it any secret that the University’s liberal arts students consider them money-grubbing consumerist whores (or so it’s rumored), but do the differences in expected salaries make these common misconceptions true? \nAccording to a New York Times article (“Certain Degrees Now Cost More at Public Universities,” July 29), public universities faced with declining state funding, overpaid professors and technology upgrades are attempting to curb widespread tuition increases by charging more for degrees in high-cost programs. People in the business school at the University of Wisconsin, for instance, will pay $500 more per semester than the rest of the student body, and the University of Nebraska is charging engineering students a $40-per-credit-hour surcharge.\nIn these almost-vocational majors, there’s a specific job spectrum where the employers expect proficiency in industry standard tools. Those tools such as medical and radiology equipment for doctors and nurses or high-end digital cameras for journalists naturally incur higher operating costs for the universities and departments offering those programs. The tendency, then, to target those students for higher tuition rates seems only reasonable.\nWhile the logic of the major-based tuition hikes rests mostly in classroom costs, the higher price tag on these arguably more lucrative degrees suggests the end of an undergraduate education is a large starting salary, not becoming the well-rounded member of society that we’ve always been told.\nThe overarching goal of an undergraduate education was, at some point, to produce well-rounded members of society, armed with critical thinking skills and interest in lifelong learning, which would ultimately cultivate a stronger society. In other words, college was a means to a whole lifestyle of bettering yourself. Now, however, we’re faced with an emphasis on lucrative professions, and the focus on liberal arts continues to dwindle, creating a sense among students that college is merely the means to a BMW.\nWorse still, by jacking up the already prohibitively expensive cost of a college education, it makes it all the more difficult for low-income families to pay for degrees that can help students pull themselves out of the red. \nDare we point out the inherent prejudice in these policies? Low income students with substantially less ability to afford high-earning degrees are relegated to study English or folklore, and we know how well the publishing world pays. \nIf it’s to be assumed that business students can endure higher costs because they will be higher-earners, though, then the logical end to that assumption is those who become low-earners but high-contributors to society, such as teachers and nurses, should actually receive discounted tuition. After all, what’s the difference? \nWe’re all into fiscal responsibility, so it’s not a matter of wanting to spread the classroom costs of these majors across the university. The problem is deeply entwined in a pervasively specialized society, where a canon of literature and an understanding of the physical universe isn’t a skill set. Students might be graduating with all the tools, but they aren’t being asked to analyze the instructions.