[hop]

My human sexuality teacher in college complained that engineering profs are paid more money, she had no perception of market value.

I'm sure it would go over like the bay of pigs, but if the gov't and colleges starting subsidizing majors based on their projected income, there surely would not be as many post college financial problems and the US would benefit from more engineers, scientists, etc. China is doing it before our very eyes, the next 50 years will be interesting.

[philwelch]

"if the gov't and colleges starting subsidizing majors based on their projected income, there surely would not be as many post college financial problems"

The funny thing is, you might expect the market to already do this. Engineering students can rationally expect to pay back tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, because engineers earn several tens of thousands of dollars per year. If student borrowers were rational and well-informed, no subsidy would be required.

Well, rationality is a tough problem to solve. But before we break out the subsidies, let's start well-informing people. You can start by putting lots of information about income potential by degree program in the mandatory entrance counseling that's required for student loans.

[marvin]

On a completely unrelated note, I attempted to get a sexology course as an elective in my CS degree, and failed as my university did not provide such a course... What sort of course was this for?

[spectre]

My University, considered going the other way last year and had a number of discussions about charging more for Engineering and Law courses than Arts courses due to future earning potentials.