This is just a weird idea? Florida is considering a differential tuition model (not weird). The idea is that different majors will cost different amounts (not weird). STEM majors (science, technology, mathematics) will be charged at a lower level than students with other majors even though actual costs in STEM areas are significantly higher (weird).
I work in a Psychology department and I do not feel responsible for defending the interest so many students have in the content of the field in which I teach. Should our students be penalized because they have a preference for psychology rather than physics? What I can say with certainty is that the tuition dollars generated by the students enrolled in psychology courses is massive in contrast to the tuition dollars generated in many other programs (even weighted for the number of faculty lines) and the funds do not go the department but are used to subsidize other programs. The proposed Florida model would go further and would mean that some programs that are already cost effective and supporting other programs would be made more costly in hopes of shifting students in another direction.
I have always understood education as a matter of choice. You make the choice and you deal with the consequences. This situation raises so many questions about choice and funding. Should academic institutions take an advocacy position in order to influence the majors of students? Who should subsidize the cost of more expensive programs – tax payers, those taking the expensive courses, those taking inexpensive courses? Should tuition be based on the actual cost of instruction or popularity? What is the purpose of education – have we now moved toward a notion of economic development and occupational preferences rather than some broader notion of personal development?