In a new study published in Issues in Science and Technology, Dominique J. Baker, an associate professor at the University of Delaware, examined the impact of student loans on STEM degrees. Baker’s findings underscore a significant increase in the cost of attending public four-year colleges in the United States, which has more than doubled since the early 1990s, even after adjusting for inflation.

Undergraduate student loan debt has reached levels that many find unmanageable. On average, bachelor’s degree recipients borrow around $41,300, with most still owing 92% of their loan four years after graduation. Alarmingly, nearly one-third of borrowers who took out loans between 1998 and 2018 have defaulted on their payments.

Unequal Burdens and Variable Outcomes

The burden of student loan debt does not affect all equally—it varies significantly across racial groups and fields of study. Recent data reveals that the repayment patterns for STEM graduates differ markedly, with debts ranging from 59% for engineering graduates to 94% for those in biological, physical, and agricultural sciences four years post-graduation.

This variation extends to tuition costs as well. Some universities charge differential tuition rates, making STEM degrees more expensive. For instance, engineering and computer science students at the University of Maryland pay nearly 27% more per semester than their peers in other disciplines.

Navigating the Future of STEM Education

The United States currently relies on a disparate collection of policies that aim to make college seem affordable while in reality forcing students to manage significant disparities in the cost of higher education. As a result, many students are burdened with debt that can impact them for decades. Learning from the approaches of other countries in how they structure their educational funding policies to genuinely lower student costs and provide targeted tuition subsidies could offer valuable insights.

For example, Australia’s Commonwealth Grant Scheme effectively combines tuition caps with differential tuition and government subsidies to manage education costs more equitably. Under this scheme, the government sets maximum amounts that students are expected to pay for different majors, supplemented by government contributions that vary based on the educational cost of the major and its prioritized importance.

In 2014, mathematics students at Australian public institutions were capped at a maximum contribution of A$8,613, with the government adding A$9,782. Meanwhile, engineering students paid the same maximum but received a much higher government contribution of A$21,707.

This approach contrasts sharply with tuition rates in the United States, where the highest annual tuition at public four-year institutions can be nearly three times greater than the average maximum student contribution in Australia. Additionally, even the highest student contributions in Australia for any discipline are significantly lower than the highest annual tuition fees in the U.S. The statistics mentioned above explain why many students opt for remote learning opportunities. Take the example of graduates considering programs like an online engineering management masters degree in the U.S. Not only do tuition costs tend to be lower in such degree programs but students can also save on course materials, transportation and in many cases, accommodation. 

The UK’s experience with tuition caps also offers lessons, albeit mixed. The government there capped tuition for all domestic undergraduate students while reducing funding for higher education, leading to unintended consequences such as course and program cuts, reduced faculty compensation, and a reliance on higher fees from international students. This situation underscores that tuition caps without complementary public support can compromise the quality of education while attempting to make it more affordable.

For the U.S. to adopt a similar approach to tuition caps, comprehensive policy planning under the Higher Education Act would be necessary. Key considerations would include determining whom the caps would benefit, who would set them, how often they should be reset, and whether they should vary by major or class load. Additionally, the implications of such caps on financial aid, student borrowing, and the financial health of educational institutions would need careful examination.

Experts on college affordability and tuition policies should convene to deliberate on the effectiveness of tuition caps within the broader context of enhancing accessibility to STEM disciplines. Given that most funding for public universities comes from state budgets, federal efforts might be insufficient on their own. The decentralized nature of U.S. higher education often obscures vital data from researchers and policymakers, which is crucial for formulating effective policies. Therefore, higher education leaders, especially in STEM fields, should actively participate in ongoing dialogues aimed at real changes in college affordability to remove barriers to STEM education and careers.

Dominique J. Baker’s research calls for a more concerted effort from policymakers, educators, and community leaders to address the complex challenges of financing higher education in the STEM disciplines. The goal is clear: to create a more equitable and accessible pathway for all aspiring scientists and engineers.