![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Liberal Arts, STEM and College Tuition
Oct. 1st, 2015 01:53 pmI was thinking today a bit about the cost of education, and the operating costs of a university.
Along those lines, consider: why is it that a liberal arts education costs the same as an education in the STEM majors? Surely it's obvious that a student of psychology, sociology, philosophy, literature, classics, and even mathematics or others does not require anywhere near the amount of lab tools and technology that computer science, medicine, engineering, chemistry, biology, physics, geology and others do? Are computers and technology *not* a primary cost for a university? Is not the field work for geology students expensive? So on and so forth.
Could a university be designed specifically around the liberal arts - avoiding expensive labs, top-of-the-line technology, chemicals for experiments, computer labs - and supply a high level liberal arts education to the students for low cost? Shouldn't universities consider this design philosophy, especially given that the expected incomes of most liberal arts graduates are far lower than STEM graduates?
Why should a liberal arts student's tuition costs bare the burden of the expensive resources that they will not utilize? A philosophy or psychology student, for instance, can obtain a degree primarily through class time, a library, personal research, and in the case of psychology, some case work studies. These are incredibly low cost services compared to what some STEM majors require.
Some universities - mine included - had a "technology fee" associated with attendance, but this fee in no way shape or form could have represented the totality of expenses for the STEM majors (or even just the computer labs, networks, etc.) Additionally, I believe there may have been a "lab fee" for students with biology or chemistry labs, but this fee was particularly minuscule and I therefore find it difficult to believe that it covered the full expenses. As a final thought along these lines, it is my understanding that STEM professors are also paid substantially more than liberal arts professors, and this difference is not reflected in the tuition costs of students attending a particular professor's lectures.
As a result of these musings, it seems a plausible theory to me that many liberal arts educations are, more or less, "farm" services for universities. Instead of burdening the students who actually utilize the most resources, they burden everyone equally. This means a portion of tuition for the liberal arts ends up being used to benefit and subsidize STEM majors. Not exactly a fair system, when you consider the average median wage of both cohorts.
Along those lines, consider: why is it that a liberal arts education costs the same as an education in the STEM majors? Surely it's obvious that a student of psychology, sociology, philosophy, literature, classics, and even mathematics or others does not require anywhere near the amount of lab tools and technology that computer science, medicine, engineering, chemistry, biology, physics, geology and others do? Are computers and technology *not* a primary cost for a university? Is not the field work for geology students expensive? So on and so forth.
Could a university be designed specifically around the liberal arts - avoiding expensive labs, top-of-the-line technology, chemicals for experiments, computer labs - and supply a high level liberal arts education to the students for low cost? Shouldn't universities consider this design philosophy, especially given that the expected incomes of most liberal arts graduates are far lower than STEM graduates?
Why should a liberal arts student's tuition costs bare the burden of the expensive resources that they will not utilize? A philosophy or psychology student, for instance, can obtain a degree primarily through class time, a library, personal research, and in the case of psychology, some case work studies. These are incredibly low cost services compared to what some STEM majors require.
Some universities - mine included - had a "technology fee" associated with attendance, but this fee in no way shape or form could have represented the totality of expenses for the STEM majors (or even just the computer labs, networks, etc.) Additionally, I believe there may have been a "lab fee" for students with biology or chemistry labs, but this fee was particularly minuscule and I therefore find it difficult to believe that it covered the full expenses. As a final thought along these lines, it is my understanding that STEM professors are also paid substantially more than liberal arts professors, and this difference is not reflected in the tuition costs of students attending a particular professor's lectures.
As a result of these musings, it seems a plausible theory to me that many liberal arts educations are, more or less, "farm" services for universities. Instead of burdening the students who actually utilize the most resources, they burden everyone equally. This means a portion of tuition for the liberal arts ends up being used to benefit and subsidize STEM majors. Not exactly a fair system, when you consider the average median wage of both cohorts.
