It is often the usual suspects: business, law, medicine, and engineering.  This used to be more reserved for graduate level studies, but is now becoming fully executed at undergrad levels as well.

My main issue is not really weather or not it is fair / just / practical / ethical / profitable to raise tuition on certain programs of study over others.    There seems to be some sense that an MBA for short selling is worth more to someone than a MFA for short stories - and that the person who is gaining that ‘value’ should somehow pay for it.

My main issue is not necessarily merely determining which ones should be raised.  The default position seems to be that if you gain increased earning potential - you pay for that upfront.

My main issue is that by working with the previous two assumptions we get to the place where if you have potential for increased income - then you will pay upfront. And if you do pay upfront - you are almost forced to take advantage of this potential earning by default.  If you get through an undergrad Engineering program and an MBA - you will feel obligated to take a good paying job - because you have six-figures in student loan. 

What about members of society getting training in medicine, law, engineering etc - and working for not-for profits.  Where are the NGO’s going to get well-trained managers, accountants etc.  What about people who want to become a lawyer to work on eliminating international child-smuggling & prostitution  (with groups like IJM.org) ?  What about engineers who would go to places like post-quake-Haiti and lend their skills to help rebuild that nation?   

If you make the assumption that people who do take these programs, will all take great paying jobs, and make them pay for that through their tuition - it seems to me it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.