Discussion about Tuition Hikes for Extra Credit Hours

In recent years, there is a phenomenon in the University of Utah that arouses legislators’ attention. Students tend to graduate with more credits than necessary and linger in the college when they have already been qualified to graduate. Thus, lawmakers intend to ask these students to pay the full cost of their education because they use more educational resources than necessary. This notion, however, has aroused widespread discussions and various reactions. In his article “Should college students who linger pay more?” Brian Maffly shows people’s different opinions. Bob Synder, the vice president for student affairs at UVU, said that it was more effective to pursue an additional major or minor in school when the employment situation in the market was not very optimistic (Maffly “Should”). And Cory Duckworth, Snyder’s counterpart at UVU, held the opinion that the goal of education was to help students prepare for life and a career and the tuition hikes for extra credit hours would thrust students out of the educational market and into the job market (Maffly “Should”). Nevertheless, Spencer Pratt, the legislative fiscal analyst argued that students with more credits than needed would create a burden for the state and would miss a perfect timing to get out of school (Maffly “Should”). From my perspective, I oppose to the tuition hikes. Students as the main future support of the society should be offered adequate educational resources to build their future careers. It is unwise to limit educational resources by tuition hikes because the credit system has its own deficiencies and students’ contributions to the society are unpredictable.

To begin with, students will have more opportunities if they have more majors or minors before graduation. As Synder said, they can have a more effective use of educational resources in school if there are not many jobs available for some majors. It will be an advantage for students to graduate earlier other others when they have earned credits required. But the premier is that the labor market is short of hands, and they have prepared enough to build their careers. However, due to the influence of the global financial crisis and wars in the Middle East, the American economy is still in the slow recovery. Some majors like finance and accounting are in the fierce competition for graduates. Students, with little working experience, will meet great obstacles when they are looking for jobs. On the contrary, if they choose to stay in school, they could elevate their competitiveness with another major or minor. Meanwhile, they could have a plentiful preparation of the knowledge they need for the future job, as well as a more practical career plan. Earning enough credits for graduation doesn’t mean students are ready for the competition in the labor market.

In addition, the purpose of education is to prepare students for life and the future career and any measure trying to limit students’ access to the educational resources they need should be viewed as against the purpose of education. As Duckworth suggested, the tuition hike will push students to the job market when they are still not ready, which is against the goal of education. According to Jonathan Ng’s experience, one of the reasons students choose other majors is that they are still trying to explore and research the career they want to pursue (Maffly “Should”). It is necessary for the college to help students find out if this career is suitable for them or not. If students choose the career that doesn’t fit them or the career in the real society is quite different from what students expect, students will meet more difficulties in the job market. Also, it will be a loss to the society if what a student has learnt can not serve the society. The college could give enough early academic advising when students are choosing their majors and future careers. It is better for students to change majors in school than to change careers in the future.

Last but not least, Pratt argues that students with extra credits than needed will cost a waste of educational resources and bring a financial burden to the state. I totally object to this notion. This notion is built on the credit system in the college. But earning enough credits to graduate doesn’t mean to make enough preparations for the future competitiveness. Ng earned 70 credits already when he just came to the college, and many other credits he earned were irrelevant to the major he finally chose (Maffly “Should”). But these irrelevant credits were still counted in his final credits for graduation. The credit system fails to measure if a student has earned enough knowledge that will be useful for his future career. Meanwhile, the way Pratt calculates a student’s spending of the state’s appropriation is quite similar to the way an accountant calculates a product’s cost. An accountant will calculate how much it needs to manufacture a qualified product and compare with the sales price to get the profit. But this method could not be used to calculate a student’s value. The real standard to measure if a student is qualified for the society is not whether he/she earns enough credits, but if he/she has made a practical career plan and obtained enough related knowledge. Also, students are not products on the production line, and their value to the society is unpredictable.

In sum, the intention of tuition hikes is against the goal of education. Students like Ng should be encouraged to explore the major and career that suit them best. And multiple majors and minors could increase their competitiveness in the job market. Students are the best investment for the society, and their values should not be measured simply based on the credit system.