How much is your college degree worth?

By extrapolating the “cost of attending” figures from The University of Alabama’s website and assuming the trend of rising education costs will continue, in-state members of the class of 2016 can expect to pay at least $50,000 for their degree by the time they graduate, while out-of-state students can anticipate spending at least $80,000 for that same diploma.

As college students, we’re accustomed to this idea of paying differing tuition rates based on where we live. The distinction makes intuitive sense: since in-state students and their families directly fund the state public education system with tax revenues, it is logical that they should pay lower tuition rates than out-of-state students.

But what if the state went a step further – what if a plan was approved which would differentiate tuition costs based on major? This concept isn’t just a theoretical exercise. In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott recently created a preliminary task force in an effort to improve higher education in the state, and one of the committee’s recommendations was the implementation of such a “tuition-by-major” plan.

The plan would basically entail higher tuition subsidies for students whose majors are in higher economic demand (primarily the “STEM” fields), while effectively “taxing” those majors that are statistically less financially productive (traditionally the liberal arts disciplines). Though controversial, the plan offers an intriguing alternative to the current flat rate system and has immediate appeal from a theoretical economic perspective.

The logic goes like this: Taxpayers are essentially lending their money to state governments to fund public education, with the expectation that these funds will be used to create positive spillover effects in the community that will benefit all citizens. It is therefore rational to view these revenues as an investment. And, in seeking to maximize the return on that investment, “tuition-by-major” plans would effectively ensure that skill development in state universities more appropriately matches skill demand in the job market.

Proponents of these plans defend the system by claiming that it would not categorically exterminate fields like political science, anthropology and history but would only deter students from pursuing such economically unrewarding disciplines.

On the other hand, opponents of the plans generally approach education costs from a standpoint of economic equity, rather than effectiveness: they argue that it would be unfair to force liberal arts students into a vicious and regressive cycle where they’d be driven to pay higher rates as a result of their low economic value. Such a system would illogically place higher cost burdens on those who can least afford to shoulder them: doctors can afford to pay off student loans, but “starving artists” likely cannot.

Ultimately, these arguments miss the point. To my mind, the real issue to be considered is not the plans’ potential consequences on loan repayment or job market supply and demand, but how such a system would impact public welfare and the fabric of our society.

Even if the plans succeeded in incentivizing state universities to produce more engineers and fewer dancers – admittedly making graduate employment more allocatively efficient – it is crucial to consider the societal costs of such an experiment.

Though unemployment would likely decrease, the labor force would consist of miserable lab techs who strive to be writers and disillusioned physicists who dream of archaeology; our society would become creatively and motivationally bankrupt. Inevitably, productivity would drop and job dissatisfaction would skyrocket. How sustainable would such an economy be?

In forming public policy, maximizing GDP should only be considered a means to an end – it is a metric, a tool, a number. More fundamentally, virtuous societies require students who study what they love and workers who love what they do. Only under such conditions can true efficiency be achieved, economic or otherwise, because people simply do a better job when they’re fulfilled and happy – not when they change career paths in response to financial bribes.

Using the relative economic value of an academic discipline to subvert the precious passions of young students would be tragically irresponsible, as such fragile emotional capital is our labor force’s most vital resource. Indeed, every economy is ultimately reliant on that intangible “human element” – those aggregate motivations and incentives which make us who we are. Any attempts to undermine such a delicate engine of prosperity and freedom will likely result in economic recession and, even worse, fundamental social deterioration.

It is impossible to know how many aspiring Thoreaus or Sondheims our society could be deprived of as a result of the economic disincentives affected by “tuition-by-major” plans. One thing is for certain: No one – regardless of major or earning potential – should want to find out.

Henry Downes is a sophomore majoring in economics. His column runs on Tuesdays.