Fifty years ago, the civil rights movement greatly increased the equality of opportunity in education. A worrisome recent trend, however, threatens to undo some of these achievements in higher education. According to a recent New York Times article, an increasing number of universities are charging additional fees for study in fields like engineering, science, journalism and business. In some cases, these fees amount to more than 10 percent of that term's tuition. At Dartmouth, this would mean an additional $1,100 per term.
Tuition differentiation presents a frightening potential scenario. The higher costs of certain majors may discourage -- or prevent -- some students from pursuing their desired course of study. This not only segregates students by economic status,but also ascribes different levels of importance to different courses of study, thereby further segregating students in what may become a vicious cycle.
If a university decides that certain fields demand more resources than others because of faculty and equipment requirements, it also decides that other fields require fewer resources and less institutional support. In turn, this may lower the quality of education provided in those fields, which may mean that a student not only has to settle on a course of study based on its price but also receives a worse education in that field. This impedes the student's ability to best apply his potential both for himself and for the good of the greater society.
According to Patrick Farrell, the provost of the University of Kansas, which has been charging higher fees for certain studies since the 1990s, evidence that price differentials are affecting students' major choices remains anecdotal. Even anecdotal instances, however, are a treacherous step furthering segregation of education along socioeconomic lines.
Different fees for different fields are also problematic because they ascribe numerical values to academic disciplines, effectively ranking them in importance. A degree in English or History -- disciplines that are as of yet not popular targets for price hikes -- is neither less intellectually rigorous nor less adequate preparation for a student's future. Post-graduation pursuits of an English major may not necessarily differ from those of an engineering student, and even if they do, they are no less valuable.
Moreover, University of Wisconsin students cited the need for first-rate faculty in certain departments as a reason they support differentiated tuition. Acquiring cutting-edge equipment was the rationale for additional fees for engineering programs. However, shouldn't all departments have equal access to the best professors and the best facilities?
Differentiated tuition, which may present one field as worthier of university support than another, is therefore not only morally questionable but also pragmatically problematic.
Since "cheaper" departments are likely to receive less attention from the university, the quality of education they provide may decrease. And because students of more modest means may be sequestered into these cheaper fields, their educational experience may be worse from that of their peers in more prestigious ones, which is yet another step back in the direction of segregated education.
This is antithetical to public universities, which are supposed to offer their students education that is at least somewhat affordable and a playing field that is at least somewhat level. Demanding different tuition fees to different majors may also imperil the reputation of public schools, needlessly deepening the divide between public and private education.
Tuition differentiation also sharpens the boundaries between different academic fields. In addition to lower-income students who may be barred from certain courses, The New York Times article mentioned that students in pricier fields may restrict themselves to courses in their field "to feel that they are getting their money's worth." Such division lines between programs produce narrowly-educated graduates and are not conducive to production and dissemination of knowledge among the disciplines.
Students derive much more satisfaction and success from studies that fascinate them and for which they are gifted. Although differentiation of tuition costs is by no means the only obstacle barring a student from his top-choice course of study, it is a significant one. Encouraging major decisions based on financial means and not ability and interest is harmful to the individual student.
Furthermore, limiting access to certain degrees to well-off students -- thereby discouraging other capable and interested learners -- leaves no one better-off.
