- NEWS
- Car plows into concrete wall, house 1 hour & 29 minutes ago
- Another up month for home prices 17 minutes ago
- Garden Grove considers two archways on Main Street 50 minutes ago
- 31 firefighters stop apartment blaze 28 minutes ago
- SPORTS
- UCLA-USC: Ten things to look for 35 minutes ago
- O.C. players make an impact in NFL 10 minutes ago
- Angels resume pursuit of Halladay 1 hour & 40 minutes ago
- Reading between the hash marks: Rick Neuheisel 2 hours & 39 minutes ago
- BUSINESS
- Be thankful for this: $1 million in cash
- More homeowners struggle in Surf City
- Zippiest O.C. home market? Los Alamitos 2 hours & 43 minutes ago
- Check out Irvine's top-viewed homes for sale 18 minutes ago
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
UCI undergrads face $900 fee for studying engineering
October 12th, 2009, 4:59 pm · 48 Comments · posted by Gary Robbins, science writer-editor
A UCI engineering student examines a combustion experiment. Image courtesy of UCI.
UC Irvine students who are upset that the Board of Regents is likely to raise system-wide fees by 30 percent through next fall have another reason to be concerned. The Regents also are thinking about adding an additional $900 levy on some undergraduate students enrolled in certain professional programs, such as engineering and business.
The state is facing a massive budget crisis, and the UC is being asked to help find ways to reduce it. That led Regents to consider charging $900 for some students, in addition to the $2,500 hike virtually all students will face under an earlier proposed hike. The hikes will be considered during a November meeting.
Specifically, the $900 would apply to juniors and seniors in engineering and business. UCI doesn’t have a large, formal undergraduate business program. But it has 2,400 undergrads in engineering and 750 graduate students.
Generally speaking, engineering and business graduates earns more money than students in many other disciplines. And some of the highest salaries in the UC go to professors in those two fields.
At the moment, the $900 surcharge is just a proposal. But the 30 percent hike that Regents are considering for all students is moving quickly toward adoption, suggesting that the $900 surcharge might also be rapidly approved. Many universities charge higher fees in certain disciplines, but usually not at the undergraduate level.
Rafael Bras, dean of engineering at Irvine, said late today the financial pressures on the UC “have hurt everybody. And I certainly hope and believe that the state and the UC system will come back and invest in education.”
But Bras also said that, “The (UC) system, as a rule, has plowed back one-third of all fee hikes into financial aid, which should help students overcome these pressures.”
Some readers of his blog have said that the UC is trying to weed out American-born undergraduates in favor of international students, who pay higher fees. Bras says that, at most, only 2 percent of Irvine’s 2,400 engineering undergrads are international students. About half of UCI’s graduate students in engineering are foreign born.
“There is a perception among many people that there’s more opportunity and prestige in other professions,” says Bras, a member of the elite National Academy of Engineering. “But I don’ agree. Engineering is a secure and well-paid profession, and I urge students to get into it.”
Other UCI stories …
- UCI resumes classes amid deep financial problems
- Creationists may hand out ’special edition’ of Darwin’s ‘Origins’ at UCI
- UCI offers free robotic therapy to some stroke patients
- UCI will stop using rats in 2 biology classes
48 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
-
-
ADVERTISEMENT
Comments?
Maybe the should take the opposite approach. Instead of charging extra for those who pursue productive fields, how about if they were to place a surcharge on those who study “Social Ecology” and “Education”, i.e., those who will be a permanent burden on society? Not one graduate in these fields will end up contributing to the tax base that floats the University.
This is the road to socialism and mediocracy. For those who can remember long enough, it was capitalism, big agriculture and the military industrial complex that built the University that we enjoy today.
Good engineering students will go elsewhere. Denying that there is a market for education won’t make it disappear.
That is completely unfair to say that those with certain degrees will be a permanent burden on society. I am a “Social Ecology” major at UC Irvine struggling to pay for school myself. I can assure you that I will be making twice as much as a business or biology major upon graduation. If you do not believe me double check the starting pay for an entry level Urban Planner versus an entry level biologist.
I agree with cuts and not furthering Tax Hikes, but the cost should not be passed onto the students. The professors and executives should be the ones taking pay cuts.
An additional solution could come from the regents working for free and the California state legislature dropping from full-time down to part-time (like every other state). OR how about breaking up LA Unified to decrease the costs spent on Administrators and limiting the vasts amounts of money that disappear into thin air all the time. There are other possibilities that are available other than increasing student fees. The UC system is the only good thing about California public education…let’s not mess that one up as well.
P.S. Poizner FTW!
So what?!? Who cares?!?
In order to ensure our long term prosperity in an increasingly competitive world, the state (and the country) need more qualified engineers and scientists. Charging extra fees for engineering students would almost certainly mean we would end up with fewer of them. If anything, we should be offering incentives to students for pursuing careers that will improve the competitiveness of our country over the long haul.
“Generally speaking, engineering and business graduates earns more money than students in many other disciplines.”
TRANSLATION: Engineering and business programs teach marketable skills. Many other programs, well, don’t.
But I have a better idea: how about assessing a $900 fee on the children who pursue completely useless majors like English Literature, Black Studies, and Communications? If their graduates are bound and determined not to produce anything of value for society when they get out of school, the least they could do is subsidize the folks who do the heavy lifting.
JT: The disciplines you mentioned aren’t useless. They are gateways to jobs in fields ranging from government to teaching to business to every form of communications. UCI is a public university. You should visit the campus and take a close look at what actually goes on.
“government to teaching”
Government does not create wealth - especially government employees who have no useful skills. They can only exist as parasites, feeding from the blood of the working stiffs.
As for teaching, the idea that you need a costly 4-year degree for most teaching positions is patently absurd. When I was in school the smarter 5th graders tutored the 4th graders. The stuff ain’t rocket science.
“to business to every form of communications”
Do you know anybody who is very successful in these fields? Most of them have a certain intuition - they are “naturals.”
Business concepts can be taught, but you won’t learn diddly squat about them in Black Studies classes. Quite the contrary in fact.
Do you think Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton needed “Communications” classes? Natural charm, some have it some don’t. If not, 4 years of indoctrination won’t fix it.
“UCI is a public university. You should visit the campus and take a close look at what actually goes on.”
I’ll do ya one better - I happen to know quite a few people with the aforementioned useless liberal arts degrees. I’m sure college was an intellectually stimulating experience for them (pshaw!) but the net benefit to their careers from the subject matter was roughly zero. Primarily they benefited from establishing a quality social circle and meeting successful future husbands.
JT: Yeah, JT, I know lots of people who are highly successful who studied fields you devalue. As for Reagan and Clinton…Reagan majored in sociology and economics at Eureka College. Clinton’s bachelor degree was in foreign service. Whether you liked or hated these men, or are indifferent, they succeeded because part of their education involved studies that you don’t appreciate, and clearly don’t understand.
The point is that Reagan and Clinton ran on natural talent. They didn’t learn their skills in some useless liberal arts program.
The overwhelming majority of liberal arts graduates never use the so-called “skills” they learned in college. In this economic climate it just doesn’t make sense to spend $35,000 on a piece of paper that won’t even get you a job at Circle K.
JT: Smarter 5th graders may tutor younger kids in a supervised setting, but I sure wouldn’t want 4th graders to be taught full time by someone with only a 5th grade education! More to the point, a bachelor’s degree or better is probably a requirement for a teaching credential in every state. So regardless of what you think about it, a college degree is a requirement for teaching in public schools.
And you are also wrong about government. At least indirectly, it does create wealth, by providing the infrastructure needed for a productive work force.
Reagan and Clinton had natural charm that contributed to their political success. However, it is unlikely that either man would ever have become Governor of his state, much less President of the US, without a college degree.
Headline, “UCI Plunges in World University Rankings” and now everyone knows why! Really cannot have much of a University if no one can afford to attend.
i spent some time thinking about this and its not really a good way to encourage US students to study the more challenging majors. Areas where we have a shortage of talent. Then I thought it would be a great idea to charge more money for the majors that teach skills that are less needed, and use that money to pay for the more expensive, much needed majors. That would encourage more students to enter those fields that are needed, and they might still be able to pay for it with the surcharges from other departments.
If certain professions will be better paid than others, then those students will already be paying far more in tax after they graduate. Singling them out for more fees than other students right now seems quite unfair.
But in a state where out of state American students get screwed in favor of illegal immigrants, fairness is obviously not a big concern.
So charge the people who are in engineering because they potentially going to earn a lot, but don’t charge other areas because they hardly make any money. Go to UCI and tell me which classes are filled, the engineering ones or the Anthropology.
Are they now going to base fees on potenial future earnings? This could get out of hand.
kb, you’re talking about political correctness in charging fees. The market should decide what services or skills are needed, not some government agency.
Editor’s Note: LPWS’ comment deleted for being off topic.
well the market doesnt really have a chance to influence at that stage right? students making decisions about future careers may make them based on what is cheapest, or what seems easiest. a lot of students don’t think seriously about their future careers or what they are capable of when they are freshman, and since our system gives them a choice we could fall even farther behind on the ability to compete on a global level. the state already subsidizes education as a whole with the idea that more people get educated that normally wouldnt or couldnt. the market doesnt really help out with that part either. so we definitely need more scientists and engineers, why not provide a little incentive for it early on, still leaving the student a choice. in any case i think its a bad idea to charge students that we need the most, the most amount of money.
How would you like to pay the bill at a restaurant, get up to leave and have the owner say, “it’s Wednesday, so I’ll need another $30.00 before you can leave.”
My son is a freshman engineering major at UCI. After hearing
this news my thought was “what’s next?” Given the seemingly continuous and unpredictable fee increases the schools are coming up with, a clear example is being set as to how incompetent our State has been managing budgets. Completely incompetent. Targeting majors based on potential post graduate income is a sign of how desperate the Regents must be to maintain their cash flow. I would like to have an independent CFO take an unemotional look at the UCI ledger, see where the expenses are, and make a recommendation as to how to make the finances work.
This is just wrong if there is going to be a surcharge how about putting it on the worthless majors like women’s studies, african american studies, dace, art, music….
You know the majors you pay 75k to get a degree to work at a job that pays less than In n Out.
I’m sorry but their is no polite way to say what idiots we have legislating within this state.
Engineers and Business majors should be encouraged if not subsidized to a greater degree than they currently are (at least engineering that is to say).
You tax (or charge a fee) for what you want to discourage and subsidize what you want to encourage.
This state just does not get basic economics let alone creating a friendly business climate.
Whole other schools within UCI or the UC system should be closed before engineering students are asked to take another hit.
No, I’m not a current student, nor an engineer - but yes I do understand the value of educating as many excellent engineers as possible.
This is a plain bad idea. This is like chopping down productive fruit trees for firewood and wondering why you are hungry in the spring.
California legislature - wake up!
What’s that I hear? Oh, more moving vans heading to Texas.
@lwps: Samueli broke some laws to be sure, but do not under-estimate the serious positive economic impact Broadcom has had upon OC and the State of California. Do some research.
Backwards: Make your point without insulting others.
“This is a plain bad idea. This is like chopping down productive fruit trees for firewood and wondering why you are hungry in the spring.”
I like that analogy!
Give me a break people, how about all of you payback the state of california for your subsidized educations. I would say $20k/yr would be fair.
We already do pay back the state. It’s called TAXES. We who are productive pay far more than our fair share for our “subsidized” educations.
Really ? How much of your tax money goes to education ?
Editor’s Note: Most modern universities, including UCI and CSUF, have good equipment, not surplus from World War II. “Engineering’s” posts don’t reflect the actual conditions at major schools.
What did you pay for college? Or did you go?
this is actually a interesting idea. please people, the price they charge has no bearing on whether students study science and engineering or not. medical school and law school and b-school cost a LOT more and the cost does little to quell the desire of undergraduates to one day attend a good school. steering more students into science happens LONG before high schoolers take their PSAT, let alone pay for their first semester/qtr. everybody agrees that the various degrees have different perceived value and there are also differing levels of demand for the various colleges. the only free market thing to do is to charge what the market will bear, is it not? and there is no doubt the market will bear this. chump change for many. but there may be many unintended consequences. for one thing, it may make diversity goals in these disciplines even more difficult to reach. the main stumbling block is that UC is a public school and stratifying the undergraduate fees runs counter to what the UC should be all about. what it in fact once was, but the citizens of this state decided to flush that all away over the last 30 years or so.
I am a college senior, and I don’t have a problem with the extra fee. While it may be a burden, students in all majors have to pay fees. For example, the film majors at my school pay about a $70 fee per class for equipment use. With about 3 film classes per semester, that quickly adds up. Also, students spend thousands of dollars at college, so if a $900 fee dissuades somebody from following their dream, then they probably don’t want to be an engineer that bad in the first place.
Backwards…..you are close.
Actually, the Legislature IS in the “encouragement” business. It’s just not what most rational people might think it is.
Rationally, we would agree that we need MORE graduates with technical, engineering and science skills, right? That’s obvious.
Not to the Legislature. They have a far different standard. They WANT more fuzzy, lazy thinkers, with a miniscule skill set, who can be easily duped into supporting their economy-destroying programs.
In other words, they do not want bright, resourceful achievers and entrepreneurs.
They want more sheeple.
Perverse as it sounds, it makes sense if you think about it.
To what end ? Could you please name some examples ?
In California too many of us think that we can have it all without paying for it (see the state budget). If something costs more, then pay more. Good business and engineering professors costs real money. Pay up or lose those guys to industry where they could easily be paid top dollar.
To all those who want to do away with “useless” majors, I will say that would be very short-sighted. I myself majored in engineering but became a better engineer for taking classes outside the my field. If you want to know what’s useless, it’s an engineer who can’t communicate his/he ideas. We have 2 halves of a brain, use them both.
CalvinG:
You wrote “If something costs more, then pay more.”
A 40% increase in one year? Perhaps for you that is a very manageable increase. For the rest of the population, it’ can very well be a deal-breaker.
Nobody is saying they “want it all” without paying for it. Those who say that aren’t paying attention.
They are complaining about the constant surprise increases in fees.
As a poster stated before, with these rate hikes it won’t be long before the private colleges are very competitive with respect to cost.
The UC system was not designed to be that.
I do not agree with the “fee”. The public institutions are facing increased pressure from “private” schools. If we truly want to be a world leader and globally competitive the powers that be need to make some hard choices as to where to “invest” there funds. I really dislike the notion that Manufacturing/Engineering students are utilizing equipment that the institution received as surplus from WWII wartime manufacturing. I know several graduated engineers that have given up looking for jobs because they lack the basic skills needed to fabricate because A) the institution did not have the technology or B) the institution had antiquated technology that was not relative.
My 2C
The joke here is that most engineering majors usually have to take a fifth year to complete a rigorous degree curriculum. Thus, it isn’t just four years of tuition for most, it is five years; couple that with a now proposed $900 tuition “penalty” (if its an annual fee, you are looking at $4,500 over five years) , campus-wide base tuition hikes, lack of financial aid, and lack of class availability - wow, higher education just sounds so tempting now!
I graduated from UCI a year ago with my B.S. & M.S. in chem. eng. and from my experience most of the engineering professors work hard for every penny they make. People outside the engineering field may not appreciate the amount of time and effort the engineering faculty put towards getting the school money and expanding research efforts. They don’t just lecture, but oftentimes manage very diverse and cutting edge research groups. The practical contribution of these research efforts to society as a whole is invaluable and is at risk even more with this decision.
However, the last thing I could support would be increases fee for the engineering students based on their potential post-college income. As many have mentioned and I echo, these are the students that will be saving lives with new medicines and technology, solving global climate issues, improving technology that EVERYBODY uses, and so much more. The regents risk making such fields an elitist group, prohibiting the creativity and intelligence of those who may not have the financial backing from their parents/guardians/self to pursue and apply such gifts.
And those that argue that art majors/film majors/etc. pay extra for supplies and equipment in their major - news flash - so do scientists and engineers! Every lab class I took required additional fees to cover the cost of equipment and supplies. In many ways this is equivalent to such costs incurred by the liberal arts. Not to mention the price of math and science related textbooks can be astronomically over-priced….
My only hope is that the regents will hear the discontentment of students, parents, and alumni, and realize the error of their proposition. There are other areas that must be considered to alleviate this budget deficit. I’m rooting for you fellow engineering anteaters!
Mike:
Well said!
I think they should be increasing nursing, engineering and business majors more. There’s alot of fallacy out there about our shortages of these professions, however I know of dozens of unemployed graduates and people with years of experience in these particular fields. Companys advertise ridiculus requirements with low pay and then complain that they can’t fill the positions. It’s just a ploy to import people with H1B visas. The other visas have yet to fully come into play known as T-1s. Companys are abusing the visa system because our legislators provide no other protection from overseas compettion. Removing these visa programs and providing trade protection for our american companys is the only way to provide a steady reliable source of jobs for americans. The likelyhood of this type of job stimulus ever being passed in congress is nill. The American worker will see a few scant openings in these fields when the economy recovers, but basically our people in these fields have already been sold out by Congress, republicans and democrats alike. Raising college fees for these professions provides due warning and hopefully discouragement to our students from the politicians who will not tell them the truth about their futures.
So, how much would we save by axing just one of the regents? I think the bloated admin at these schools is the place to make savings, not by grabbing even more from those who want to learn.
p.s. I’d like to congratulate the young man in the photo for an excellent scruffy grad student beard, 8 out of 10 razors.
Fees should be lower for majors that we need to better compete in a world economy. Encouraging needed skills such as engineering, science, nursing, and medicine is simply common sense.
One area where lower educational fees are needed is medicine. New physicians are burdened with huge student loans, so they must enter a lucrative specialty to pay them off, rather than going into family practice, which is experiencing shortages.
Does this additional increase apply to Information and computer science(ICS) and Bio Sci??
My son is at an out-of-state school, and we are getting charged an extra fee because he is an engineering major.
However, I think that salaries that graduates will “probably” get are a poor excuse for charging extra fees for certain majors. Within any major, some graduates will do well financially, and some won’t. And some majors, while not in themselves particularly lucrative, provide doorways to potentially lucrative professional degrees (such as law).
Extra fees may be reasonable to help cover special expenses associated with offering certain programs. For instance, increasing lab fees for courses with labs may be an appropriate option.
This is ridiculous. I had to drop out of college while I was working towards a degree in chemical engineering because I could not afford the college fees despite having a decent-ish GPA (middle 3s) and decent SAT scores (2050). Scientists and engineers are exactly what this country needs the most, and it’s sickening to see what seems to be a push against anyone entering these fields.
I have to note; I’m obviously not the same Mike that posted above.
As a 4th year Mech engineering student at UCI this tuition increase is absolute bullshit. This is exactly what the UC system shouldn’t be doing. As I will be staying a 5th year, at about 18 units/quarter because of the workload, yes this financial issue could potentially affect me.
—–
Just don’t be surprised if you hear more and more engineering and science grads finding better and more lucrative jobs abroad such as in Asia and the Middle East because of deterring acts such as tuition hikes
I would also like to mention that i have yet to have an engineering class with less than 150 students. I have taken several Humanities and language classes at UCI as part of my “general education” requirement and did not have a class with more than 20 students per professor.
Also libraries are open on weekends a total of 8 hours, to save money on electricity. On the other hand, the school gym is open 26 hours per weekend. So UCI really needs to re-evaluate it’s financial priorities.