An article about a trend among public colleges got me angry and wondering "what planet are these administrators on?" The July 29 New York Times article, "Certain Degrees Now Cost More at Public Universities," reported how some colleges impose surcharges on students studying engineering and business, among other disciplines. Students in "softer" subjects, such as literature and journalism, pay no such surcharge. The cost differential is between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars per year, depending on the institution.

The rationale for this surcharge is that engineering programs are more costly, requiring expensive equipment and labs, even higher-paid professors. I can almost see the point of this argument, although I disagree with it.

But the other, bigger argument (or rationale) really has me fuming. Apparently, students who graduate with engineering and business degrees are likely to earn more in their careers, so, hey, let's charge them more right now, as payback in advance.

Sorry, but no one goes into engineering for the money; you do it for love. It's a tough, uncertain business, fraught with hiring and layoff binges, constant change and turmoil, and the brutal pace of technology with which to keep current. Sure, some engineers make serious money, but that's usually because they build an innovative company or product, so that's a fully deserved exception.

There are easier ways to make a decent living, and there are many factors to financial success. Many (perhaps too many) of those making the really big bucks are in Hollywood, law or nontechnical entrepreneurial ventures, and have nontechnical or liberal arts backgrounds. No area of college study produces homogenous results.

Whatever your views on the "engineering shortage" (and I have conflicting emotions about how real or fabricated it is), why would you want to impose extra costs on those whom you claim are critical to the long-term economic growth of society? If educational institutions really wanted to attract more engineering students, they'd cut costs for these students, rather than hit them with a surcharge.

The more I think about how foolish this differential idea is, the more the cynic in me rises to the forefront. Since the middle of the 20th century, engineering has been a profession of smart, hardworking, innovative people that is often lauded in terms of prestige and influence, but then is ultimately dismissed. Sure, society talks the talk about the value of engineering, but then not only doesn't it walk the walk, it knows you can kick many engineers and they'll still come back for more, since they love design and development so much. The "existential pleasures of engineering" (to cite Samuel Florman's excellent book title) brings them back every time, so why not charge them extra?