No, that's not what I mean
Say SJSU is known for engineering and maybe business, as the two "standout" majors with the largest enrollment and best programs, which attract students and recruiters.
The schools of those majors (college of engineering, college of business) should be technically have more professors and be LARGER to accommodate a larger population (within the majors, not the uni itself). That means that those colleges should also be using more RESOURCES (professors, labs, etc) and hence should cost more.
The humanities department (college of humanities) should have a tuition that is proportionally less, based on the students enrolled in that college and the number of RESOURCES used for that college. At least, that's how I think Cal Poly works, but I could be wrong on the details.
Basically, different majors pay different tuitions WITHIN THE SAME UNI, and obviously there would be a ceiling/floor to this figure.
Make sense? That's what I mean.
What I don't like is that something like the Parking Services at my uni was pulling in just under $2 million a YEAR from parking permits, fines, daily passes...and they were NOT obligated to share that money with the school. At least, that's what the lieutenant I interviewed for an article told me. That is ABSURD. You are profiting off the student body, you should at least pay a portion of that to the uni, like a brokerage fee.
I think the budgets/expenses should be made much more accessible and transparent to the students/public. I would also like some system where private sectors donates X amount for a guarantee of college grads to work for them...not a slave system, but an OPTION. i.e., Google pays $1 million dollars in exchange for the top 1% of programmers from the uni. Grads would work for a bit lower salary out of school, but the job would be pretty much guaranteed.
The system could scale so company A pays $1 million and gets say 20% of top 1% of students, while company B pays $500,000 and gets 10% of top 1%....or something like that, but definitely tiered.
It would lower tuition costs (I think) and give the companies a say (hopefully, in the long run) in the overall program structure of the major they are recruiting from. This means hiring managers would be able to vote on what courses should be taught to prepare students for work.
That last idea is a bit out there because it involves so much change, but I think it could possibly alleviate some pains. I am sure there are problems with it, though.
Yes, I KNOW. That's why I am so pissed off. Make the professors SHARE the same pain as students, it will force the professors to act and push back against publishers. Right now, profs have NO incentive to keep the older texts. It's retarded. I personally think all the bundled slides and exams that come with newer texts is a big reason why profs keep going for the newer material--essentially, many profs are lazy, usually the ones who have just started teaching or aren't yet tenured, but also the ones who are NOT from industry.
I have always favored industry profs (in general). Huge difference in how they teach.