I applaud the underlying premise of Austin Swink's column regarding STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) majors. There is a need to encourage students to pursue these fields because they provide a large part of the foundation upon which our economy and society rest. However, his proposal that raising the tuition for these students will increase the number of graduates with these degrees is wholly false.
First and foremost, Swink neglected to consider that Bernie Machen is hardly speaking as an impartial observer seeking the best for students. His job is to manage UF, and one of the main objectives of that job is for him to bring in as much money as possible to the university by any means at his disposal, including raising tuition. This is not an indictment against Machen; it is simply a statement of the obvious.
This corresponds to the argument that increasing tuition will improve funding for lab equipment, high-salaried professors and costly teaching materials. While charging students more will bring in more dollars, the question should be: at what cost?
It is highly doubtful that the additional revenue brought in will offset the loss of students as a result of the increase in costs. Furthermore, a large portion of the money used to pay for new equipment, materials and even professors comes from research grants, not student tuition. Consequently, raising tuition would ultimately do relatively little to improve the labs, professors and materials. I find it interesting that Swink argues that increasing tuition will make potential STEM students more carefully consider whether or not they should pursue such a degree. If this is such a good thing for STEM majors, why not apply it to all majors?
Raising tuition for a political science degree will make potential students also more carefully consider whether that is, in fact, the major they wish to obtain. Of course, this idea is nonsense. Rather than charging a "cover" for a STEM degree, a far more effective means of assisting students in choosing the major is to allow them to see firsthand what they will be learning and how it will help them in the long run.
There are numerous programs in the College of Engineering that pair new and potential students with current students and professors who can answer their questions and shed some light on the various degrees that interest them. Finally, I do agree with Swink's counter to the argument that raising tuition will not keep students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds from seeking a STEM degree.
There are abundant sources of financial aid to assist those students. However, he seems to ignore the harm that will be done to students of average socioeconomic status who do not have various financial aid programs to fall back on. The additional burden placed on these students will result in them being forced to work more hours or take out more loans in order to make it through. There is no need to saddle these students with additional debt or responsibility.
Swink's intentions are admirable and noble. There is a real social and economic need for UF and universities across the nation to increase the number of STEM graduates. However, as is often the case, the best of intentions result in the worst outcomes. Such is the case here.
Brent Melvin
UF senior
Civil Engineering
