×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Charging engineering students more for their education
23

Charging engineering students more for their education

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Charging students based on “earning potential”?
Shouldn’t then football players pay the most?

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

(OP)
Nope, wouldn't work, their majors are basket weaving not football. They would end up paying the least.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

I thought the idea was that charges were in some way related to the cost of tuition.

- Steve

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

hard to see why maths students should be charged more on the basis of either cost of the course, or earning potential. Also higher cost of entry should keep the riff raff out, thereby increasing the scarcity value of an engineering degree.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

4
(OP)
Are you saying that just because someone can't afford to enter into a higher cost engineering education they are not qualified to be an engineer? I'm not sure I agree with that statement, but you are entitled to your opinion. I would think a better way to keep the riff raff out would be to increase the demand of the curriculum. That way only the best make it through an the others become business majors.

When I started at University, I was in a basic engineering 101 class with 45 Civil Engineering students, when I graduated 4 years later I was with 10 Civil Engineering Students...... and not one other peer was with me from the engineering 101 class. Using the statistics provide to me by NCEES only 70% passed the FE the first time and only 33% passes the Structural I exam the first time when I took it. Using that information out of 45 students....only 3-4 wold be practicing structural engineers at this point (figuring some repeat takers passing the exams). So from beginning to end, 90% of the class either didn't graduate as an engineer or failed at the PE exam. I think that is a pretty good weeding of the riff raff.

Of course, this is coming from someone who probably shouldn't have made it through.... and never would have made it through 40-50 years ago when a calculator was only for the privileged.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Another aspect of the question is who is paying or perhaps partially subsidizing the cost for the student.

If the government (be it state federal or whatever) is subsidizing the education in some way (be it student grants, low cost student loans, money to the university system directly...) then is it unreasonable for them to see where their best return on investment may be.

In this case it might be argued that courses which will give greater payback to the govt due to higher taxes on higher earnings (as well as any multiplier effects), as well as those which have some other clear beneficial effect on society/the economy should in fact benefit more from any govt subsidy (in whatever form) while those courses with less pay back to society should actually receive less subsidy in whatever form.

I believe there was talk in Texas of something along these lines.

This may mean some arts majors etc. pay full ticket price for their education with less subsidy of any loans etc. I find it hard to believe the academic elite would allow this to happen, if nothing else the issue of education for education sake V 'trade school' will probably be brought up and vociferously argued.

Plus, government may not do a good job at predicting what majors will be in demand in the future and so could misdirect any rationing/subsidies messing things up further.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

4
KENAT,
I was talking about this to a recent graduate in Australia and she said that her student loans are paid by her income tax. The way she describe it is that:
  • Once she got a job, she calculates her income tax on wages earned in Australia
  • The income tax she calculated is applied directly to her outstanding student loan
  • If she immigrates then the debt reverts to a traditional loan
  • When the loan is paid off, her taxes go where everyone else's taxes go
This seems like a really good way to apply economic policy to further a country's goals. It would probably work for a state, but you have to worry about some of the interstate commerce issues (and Texas doesn't have an income tax).

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"

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Charging more for certain majors sounds like an awful idea, especially engineering. I had a long rant, but decided to stay away from that. With that being said I still remember how much more text books were each quarter compared to other majors!! Spending $400 on books for 1 steel structural class.

B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil Engineer and Structural Engineer
http://bwengr.com | http://bwstructuralengineer.com | http://bwcivilengineer.com

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

And all this is predicated on the premise that a student can get a job in his chosen profession. Factor that in in this economy.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Mike: But according to everyone I know its easy to get a job with an engineering degree. Obviously none of them are engineers. But that mindset is out there. Just like how nursing is starting to become harder to find a job now. But schools are churning them out like the dollar printing press.

B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil Engineer and Structural Engineer
http://bwengr.com | http://bwstructuralengineer.com | http://bwcivilengineer.com

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Well, at least one post agrees with my logic, if you reduce the number of engineering graduates then it should be easier for them to find jobs. Incidentally the UK currently charges more for some degrees than others, as does Australia. I can see no reason why all degrees should cost the same.

If as a matter of policy you decide to subsidise some courses, that is fine, but it should start from a sensible discussion about costs and priorities.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Let us think of the law of supply and demand. Salaries (generally speaking) are based upon this principle. When fresh out of school, I took a job at an A & E firm. After a few weeks, a couple of newbies (various disciplines) were at lunch and salaries became the discussion. I felt my compensation was decent. An architect, at the table discovered he was making less than half what I was as a structural engineer. I discovered I was making 20% less than the electrical engineer.

The architect, very upset by the discussion, went to HR to complain about his salary. He was told that the market had been flooded and he could be replaced easily.

So, if we base tuition on future earning potential, do we run the risk of pushing more people into the lower cost education (with lower future earning potential)? If so, then do we not further decrease the earning potential of these people? Just like it may have a positive impact on engineering salaries.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

As I said, decide what your desired outcome is and then modify your strategy to suit. You seem to be saying that fewer engineering graduates is a bad thing, yet many people would agree that it can be quite hard to find openings for (say 90%) of fresh engineering graduates in appropriate jobs. One approach might be to increase the fees for engineering degrees, and so reduce the supply, or you could subsidise the wages of first year graduates, for example. The unintended consequences of the latter could be quite atrocious. I'd rather see a barrier to entry raised on ability rather than ability to pay, but I've know absolutely useful engineers who are academically mediocre, and of course clever but lousy engineers.

So far as the USA goes
1)engineering degrees cost more to run than basket-weaving degrees
2)US industry claims there are not enough engineering graduates (we know what that really means)
3)Engineering graduates claim they cannot get well paid attractive engineering jobs with good prospects.
4)Engineers tend to earn more than basket-weavers.

Obviously points 2 and 3 can't both be true in the same way. Obviously employers would say that they just can't qualified engineers to work for minimum wage, and some graduates would say that they should be on a red carpet ride to a corner office with a minibar.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

"I'd rather see a barrier to entry raised on ability rather than ability to pay, but I've know absolutely useful engineers who are academically mediocre, and of course clever but lousy engineers."

There in is part of the tricky bit. Being good at maths & science at school are necessary but in my opinion often insufficient prerequisites for being a good engineer and enjoying (at least relatively) being an engineer.

I'm far from convinced there's a lack of engineering graduates in terms of sheer numbers in the US. There may be a lack of engineers with the right skills willing to work for the 'right pay' as Greg suggests. There may also be a lack of willingness on behalf of some employers to take grads and continue their eduction (or potentially have more effective internship/sandwich year courses etc.).

There might even be too many people taking engineering that while good at maths and physics don't have much interest in engineering as such and so don't thrive in industry.

There may also be students that determine that engineering seems harder than certain other courses and think they can get better grades for the same or lesser effort in another course of study.

In our recent recruiting they have wanted folks with certain precision instrumentation/machinery skills which in practice has meant recent phd candidates from one of the few schools that have a directly relevant graduate research dept. Of these recent phd candidates nearly all of them have been non US residents. Now whether this is because all the US resident phd grads have better opportunities elsewhere or because there are a lot more non US resident Phd candidates in these fields I don't know for sure.

Simplistically though it might suggest that the effective cost for US grads to get these Phd's is already too high?

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

soo... would you charge people based on their declared major, or based on their courseload? Seems that an easy work-around would be to come into the school as a geology major, take all your engineering courses, then switch to engineering a year or so before graduation?

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

The way to deal with graduating too many engineers is to graduate fewer of them. Make the admission criteria harder, and the coursework harder too. Oh, and stop selling an engineering education to kids as if it was soap. It's important to distinguish the value that engineering provides to society (which is substantial) from the benefit of engineering as a career option. The latter is still great if you're in the top 10% of a great university, but on average it has slipped to be the poorest cousin of the real professions simply because we crank out too much supply via graduation and immigration.

Tuition needs to be high enough to deter kids who are just wasting their time partying with no intention of graduating, but low enough and/or paired with grants to ensure that it's not a barrier to kids without supportive parents or whose parents aren't rich. Public education is a fundamental societal and economic value- it's essential to counteract the tendency to generate a static aristocracy and a static under-class. We've seen too much of that already in the last 20 years.

Shortage? The only shortage is of employers willing to hire fresh grads and train them. The business lobby want a cheap, cowed workforce that was entirely trained at someone else's expense. They never want to see wages rise in response to skills demand. And in engineering, they haven't.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

My first thought was why shouldn't tuition be related to the cost to provide the education. Seems like simple economics. More facilities are needed to teach computer science, or engineering than English or art or philosophy. Universities should be competing with industry for qualified professors in courses that actually have industry, so salaries should be higher.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Charging more for tuition based merely on your chosen major seems like a bad idea.
If there really is a shortage of engineers, they should be charging less so more people could afford it. Besides, any engineering major has plenty of weed-out classes to keep those who can't handle it out of the profession.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

one word: impending college credit bubble burst

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Quote (moltenmetal)

Public education is a fundamental societal and economic value- it's essential to counteract the tendency to generate a static aristocracy and a static under-class. We've seen too much of that already in the last 20 years.

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.)

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Well said rconnor

Quote (zdas04)

I was talking about this to a recent graduate in Australia and she said that her student loans are paid by her income tax.

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...

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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%.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

I though weeding out the the non-viable students was why "weed" classes existed.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

"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

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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"

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

"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

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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 - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

This is an interesting link:
http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-20...

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.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

What we ought to do is charge the bejeebers out of liberal arts majors (not to mention law students) and deflate some of these overpopulated, under-useful populations of misdirected youth.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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"

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/opinion/granderson-c...

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

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.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education


poke

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

rconnor,
"Let me Google That For you"? Cute. Ill informed, but cute. Ill mannered, but cute. Incredibly pretentious, but cute. I actually watched hundreds of interviews with the people in the tents. I was interested. I watched the ones interviewed by Fox, and felt like I was getting a cherry picked lot of idiots. I watched the ones interviewed by CNN and while the cherry picking was looking for a different result, the people in the tents still came across as idiots. I watched the ones interviewed by CBS and even with their careful editing, the people in the tents still came across as unsure as to why they were there. I watched the ones interviewed by Jon Stewart's staff from the Daily Show and laughed along with the audience. Other than a few "leaders" of the "leaderless" organization, the message coming out from the few who could articulate an opinion was "I've got an important degree and can't find a job and it is the fault of Wall Street". Person after person after person interviewed would say things to the effect that if they had found a job out of college they wouldn't be in the park, and it was someone else's fault that they couldn't find a job.

So, twit, I do not feel a bit uninformed and see no reason to ask for an excuse. I stand by my statements. The "movement", in spite of grandiose statements on Wikipedia and elsewhere of their lofty goals, was populated by entitled twits who had not been able to monetize their liberal arts education.

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"

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

6
I'm going to take the snit over the Occupy movement as an opportunity to post one of my favorite bits of satirical writing.

(Lemony Snicket is the pseudonym of the author of the "Series of Unfortunate Events" children's books, which are themselves worth a bit of an adult read)

Thirteen Observations made by Lemony Snicket while watching Occupy Wall Street from a Discreet Distance

1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesn’t mean you would be a midget if you were bald.

2. “Fortune” is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.

3. Money is like a child—rarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.

4. People who say money doesn’t matter are like people who say cake doesn’t matter—it’s probably because they’ve already had a few slices.

5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.

6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.

7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Don’t tell them they aren’t. Sit with them and have a drink.

8. Don’t ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone else—a stranger in the street, for example.

9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.

10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.

11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.

12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if you’re the one tumbling down when it collapses.

13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

" I fail to see why any university would suddenly need to "charge more" for engineering degrees."

Who said "suddenly"? /recognizing/ the true cost of providing a particular degree course may happen suddenly, but the cost was always there. I'm pretty sure the operating costs of my labs was way beyond what any basket weaving degree would cost. Running steam engines, turbines, and internal combustion engine on dynos costs hundreds of dollars an hour in the real world. We had an entire boiler and steam turbine to run in one lab.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

On the flipside of all this, here's Georgia Tech with a reinvention of the education model in order to offer a masters degree in computer science for under $7000:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technolog...

***

As far as the whole "hard work gets you rich" argument, I think if everyone took a step back and looked at it objectively, the truth is that there are several important elements to getting rich, and you don't need all of them:

- Work hard (getting a real non-fluff degree fits in here, but is not essential)
- Be born intelligent
- Be lucky
- Have rich parents

Those are really the four. If you look at statistics, having only one of those will get you to about the top 30% of earners in the USA. Having two of them will get you to the top 10%. Three gets you to the top 1%. And when you're counting, "Rich Parents" counts twice.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Just a note about OWS. It was about more than student loans. It was also about demanding that the "too big to fail" conditions socialized risk and privatized profits and lead to the great recession be addressed. True OWS was rather hamhanded about it, but that does not mean that they were wrong.

But back to student loans - where were the parents when the children took out the loans? I would have stood in front of a bulldozer to prevent my kids from getting into serious student debt. When my daugher fell in love with a $55,000 a year college, I calculated her projected monthly payments how many pairs of expensive designer jeans she would be foregoing each month. Luckily this changed her mind.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

One thing that struck me about OWS is that it showed again how modern "radicals" have lost there grasp of the meaning of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a deliberate breaking of a law to make a point. Getting arrested is part of the potential outcomes (and often desirable). It's taking a risk to make a point and assuming responsibility for the consequences.

Now protesters seem to think that legal infractions done in the name civil disobedience should be viewed as free speech and not interfered with.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

The truth is OWS and the original Tea Party were founded for the same reasons - as a reaction to the proliferation of money buying votes in Washington, since that's what led to the bailouts. Rich failures bought themselves out of their failures, while everyone else got stuck holding the bag. Both were originally established on the same premise.

But both diverged, because the establishment Reds and establishment Blues saw both of them both as a threat and an opportunity. Ailes and the religious right hijacked the Tea Party and turned them basically into the Angry Wing of the Republican party. (although the Ron Paulers are slowly stealing it back) Big Media hijacked OWS and turned it into the Angry Wing of the Democratic Party, until they started behaving like anarchists, and then sorta rubbed them out all together.

I get a real kick out of watching "Americans Against the Tea Party" posts on Facebook which are actually supporting original Tea Party principles without realizing it.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Quote (beej67)


- Work hard (getting a real non-fluff degree fits in here, but is not essential)
- Be born intelligent
- Be lucky
- Have rich parents

Where does 'marry money' fit in, under 'Be lucky' or 'Work hard'?

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

Quote:

Where does 'marry money' fit in, under 'Be lucky' or 'Work hard'?

Honestly, in most cases I'm aware of, "marry money" stems from "have rich parents." :)

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

A college degree certainly is not a pre-requisite to becoming rich either. Look at Bill Gates. He is the poster child for this, since he is a college drop-out. And he never finished his degree work as far as I know.

Maui

www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

and Steve Jobs ...

but often a degree is a ticket to a ballgame.

i think that somewhere on the list should be ...
have 1 really good idea ... copying what other people are doing usually doesn't get you rich; seeing something new or a new application/opportunity of an existing idea can.

have the personality to back yourself when everyone says you're nuts.

i wonder if intelligence is being over-rated. if you have the flash of insight, the drive to make it real, the luck to have the right factors at the right time, then i think you're a long way there.

somehow, having rich parents sounds so much easier ! closely followed by rich in-laws, or stealing a tonne of money from the mafia.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Charging engineering students more for their education

You always hear about Jobs, and Gats, and Edison as examples of why you don't need to go to college. Each of them (and every other non-degreed successful person I've ever heard about) had a very strong entrepreneurial drive. If you have that plus a strong work ethic, then the amount that a degree will contribute to success is pretty small. Without that, a degree is pretty well mandatory for financial success.

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"

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close