NYT Article on "Tuition Game"

<p>COLLEGEVILLE, Pa. — John Strassburger, the president of Ursinus College, a small liberal arts institution here in the eastern Pennsylvania countryside, vividly remembers the day that the chairman of the board of trustees told him the college was losing applicants because of its tuition. </p>

<p>At Ursinus College officials determined that tuition was too low to draw enough students. So they raised it, and applications surged. </p>

<p>At right, students at Swarthmore, where tuition and other costs in the last academic year surpassed $41,000 — a bargain, administrators say.
It was too low.</p>

<p>So early in 2000 the board voted to raise tuition and fees 17.6 percent, to $23,460 (and to include a laptop for every incoming student to help soften the blow). Then it waited to see what would happen.</p>

<p>Ursinus received nearly 200 more applications than the year before. Within four years the size of the freshman class had risen 35 percent, to 454 students. Applicants had apparently concluded that if the college cost more, it must be better.</p>

<p>“It’s bizarre and it’s embarrassing, but it’s probably true,” Dr. Strassburger said. </p>

<p>Ursinus also did something more: it raised student aid by nearly 20 percent, to just under $12.9 million, meaning that a majority of its students paid less than half price.</p>

<p>Ursinus is not unique. With the race for rankings and choice students shaping college pricing, the University of Notre Dame, Bryn Mawr College, Rice University, the University of Richmond and Hendrix College, in Conway, Ark., are just a few that have sharply increased tuition to match colleges they consider their rivals, while also providing more financial assistance.</p>

<p>The recognition that families associate price with quality, and that a tuition rise, accompanied by discounts, can lure more applicants and revenue, has helped produce an economy in academe something like that in the health care system, with prices rising faster than inflation but with many consumers paying less than full price. </p>

<p>Average tuition at private, nonprofit four-year colleges — the price leaders — rose 81 percent from 1993 to 2004 , more than double the inflation rate, according to the College Board, while campus-based financial aid rose 135 percent. </p>

<p>The average cost of tuition, fees, room and board at those colleges is now $30,367. Many charge much more; at George Washington University, the sum is more than $49,000. </p>

<p>But aid is now so extensive that more than 73 percent of undergraduates attending private four-year institutions received it in the school year that ended in 2004, not even counting loans. </p>

<p>“We can cushion the sticker shock,” said Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania, which distributes aid on the basis of financial need. “We focus on both middle-income and low-income families.” </p>

<p>So net prices vary widely on a given campus. On some, as many as 90 percent of students receive support, primarily from the college itself or the federal government. </p>

<p>And financial need is not the only basis for it. Many colleges, competing for the students with high grades and standardized test scores that help a college rise in rankings guides, offer merit aid ranging from a few thousand dollars to a full scholarship.</p>

<p>But officials of private colleges and universities say they fear that unless other steps are taken, the middle and upper middle class could ultimately be squeezed out.</p>

<p>“Eventually, if we’re going to keep raising tuition at rates much more than the increase in family incomes, then something has to be done to make the places more accessible to the middle class,” said Ronald G. Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.</p>

<p>As it is, some students may not even apply to private colleges, scared away from the start by tuition and unaware of the available discounts. After all, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities — though growing recently at a faster pace than those at private institutions — remain vastly lower, at an average of $5,836, the College Board says.</p>

<p>It can be argued that everyone studying at a private liberal arts college is getting a discount. At institution after institution, officials say they offer an education costing tens of thousands of dollars more than even the college’s “sticker price.”</p>

<p>Take Swarthmore, the elite college half an hour’s drive from Ursinus. With an annual budget of $106 million to educate just under 1,500 undergraduates, Swarthmore spends about $73,690 a student. But its tuition, room, board and fees in the last academic year were little more than $41,000. </p>

<p>“The half of our student body whose families are paying the full sticker price are paying $41,000 for something that costs $73,000,” said Suzanne P. Welsh, the treasurer. “So they’re getting a great discount.” </p>

<p>The other students receive a bigger subsidy: on average, aid totaling more than $28,500, most of it from the college itself. (Swarthmore limits its aid to students with financial need, but that can mean those from families earning $150,000 a year if, for instance, there are circumstances like having multiple children in college.)</p>

<p>What makes it all work is Swarthmore’s $1.3 billion endowment, which throws off enough income to cover 43 percent of the operating budget.</p>

<p>The biggest expenditure at liberal arts colleges is for salaries and benefits. With competition for big-name professors becoming more intense, faculty salaries have increased. So has the pay of college and university presidents, more than 100 of whom now receive at least $500,000 a year.</p>

<p>Then there are the amenities sought by students: coffee bars, lavish new dormitories, state-of-the-art science laboratories and fitness centers. </p>

<p>“You’re trying to create the best educational experience for your students, and that costs money,” said Tom Tritton, president of Haverford College. “I sometimes say to parents, ‘I can make it cheaper if you want.’ ” </p>

<p>Still, none of this explains why colleges like Swarthmore and Ursinus — with different student-faculty ratios, endowments and reputations — end up with tuition and fees only a few hundred dollars apart, or less. Or why Harvard’s tuition and fees, at $33,709, are virtually the same as theirs.</p>

<p>One big reason is that institutions of higher learning watch one another. </p>

<p>In November, the finance committee of Swarthmore’s board of managers gathered at a Manhattan law firm and pored over a chart of tuition, room and board at more than 30 prestigious colleges and universities. They were pleased to see that Swarthmore was charging somewhat less than most of its competitors.</p>

<p>That kind of scrutiny led Bryn Mawr to a contrary sentiment, causing the college to raise tuition and fees this year by about 9 percent, their biggest jump in several years. Bryn Mawr officials say they made the decision after their research showed that the college charged less than its rivals and awarded more aid. The officials concluded that raising tuition would not deter applicants, because prospective students already assumed that Bryn Mawr cost the same as comparable colleges. </p>

<p>“The question was, Does that make sense?” said John Griffith, Bryn Mawr’s treasurer and chief financial officer. “Have we benefited at all from being the low price point? And the answer was no.”</p>

<p>Some of the nation’s bigger institutions have also found an incentive to raise prices. As part of an effort to improve its academic offerings and transcend its renown for football, the University of Notre Dame has raised tuition and fees by an inflation-adjusted 27 percent since 1999, to $32,900. In setting tuition, Notre Dame watches 20 other colleges and universities, including the University of Chicago, Emory and Vanderbilt.</p>

<p>“We’re setting it by our competitors,” said the Rev. John I. Jenkins, the institution’s president.</p>

<p>But Notre Dame’s financial aid has increased even more over the same period, with undergraduate scholarships up 107 percent after adjustment for inflation. This year the university is distributing $68 million.</p>

<p>Facing stiff competition, Hendrix College, a small liberal arts institution in Conway, Ark., decided two years ago to bolster its academic offerings, promising students at least three hands-on experiences outside the classroom, including research, internships and service projects. It also raised tuition and fees 29 percent, to $21,636. Most of the increase went back to students as aid.</p>

<p>As a result, 409 students enrolled in the freshman class this year, a 37 percent increase.</p>

<p>“What worked was the buzz,” said J. Timothy Cloyd, the Hendrix president. “Students saw that they were going to get an experience that had value, and the price positioning conveyed to them the value of the experience.”</p>

<p>Other colleges have tried the opposite. Muskingum College in New Concord, Ohio, cut tuition and fees drastically in 1996, to $10,285 from $14,240. </p>

<p>“We believed that if we lowered tuition, we would open access to the middle class” and “that we would continue to serve the higher socioeconomic-background students by becoming a best-buy institution,” said Anne C. Steele, Muskingum’s president. </p>

<p>Revenue increased, with enrollment of more students who could pay full price. Muskingum has also grown, to 1,600 undergraduates from about 1,000.</p>

<p>Yet the same strategy proved disastrous for North Carolina Wesleyan College. Ten years ago that college cut tuition and fees by 22 percent, to $7,150. But it attracted fewer wealthy applicants and more poor ones, who needed more aid even as the revenue generated from tuition declined.</p>

<p>“It didn’t work out the way it had been hoped,” said Ian David Campbell Newbould, the college’s president. “People don’t want cheap.”</p>

<p>continued... <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/education/12tuition.html?ex=1166590800&en=9504fb23a36beddc&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/education/12tuition.html?ex=1166590800&en=9504fb23a36beddc&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Many administrators say that without raising prices, they could not maintain or expand economic diversity among the student body. In other words, making college more expensive for some enables less well off students to go.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Interesting, b/c I keep reading on cc that the wealthier students are not subsidizing students with greater financial need.
But officials of private colleges and universities say they fear that unless other steps are taken, the middle and upper middle class could ultimately be squeezed out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are they kidding? I see that already has happened. I know many middle and upper middle class students at public colleges b/c they cannot afford private schools without aid, and merit scholarships of 10-12,000, without any additional financial aid does not cover what they need to pay the COA of 40-43,000.</p>

<p>The way it is explained in the article is that even full-paying students are being subsidized considerably, because their total educational costs are much greater than what they are paying. But, obviously, if the price for full paying students is increased, there will be additional money taken in that can be used for financial aid for other students.</p>

<p>The part of the article that really surprises me is the chart showing how much college costs have increased after adjusting for inflation. In 1976-77, Swarthmore's and Harvard's tuition and fees were about $14,000 IN TODAY'S DOLLARS, as opposed to about $33,000 today!</p>

<p>I was just looking at Amherst Tuition and financial aid page:</p>

<p>"When we calculate an aid award, we use a student expense budget that includes both direct charges and out-of-pocket expenses. In 2006-07, the budget includes:</p>

<p>Comprehensive fee (tuition, room and board): $43,360
Other student fees (student activities, campus center programs and residential governance): $636
Health insurance (may be waived): $880
Books and supplies (estimate): $950
Personal expenses (estimate): $1,700
Travel (estimate; varies by location): $50-$2,000
Cost of attendance: $47,576-$49,526</p>

<p>The college's actual cost of educating a student at Amherst is more than $75,000 a year. However, income from our endowment and gifts helps subsidize that amount significantly, even for students who do not receive financial aid."</p>

<p>This is bs. What they are doing is price fixing.</p>

<p>I just have to relay this tidbit of information. Harvard sent my kid a letter about financial aid and that families who earn less than 60k/year do not have to contribute anything to the cost. It just made me think how stupid they were. First, you would think that a school of higher education would check the zip codes before they send such a letter. Now, I am not saying that I live in a posh area but in order to live where I live you would need more than that to be able to afford this middle income area!! </p>

<p>How stupid do they think you are.</p>

<p>If Amherst truly costs $75,000 per year than education has lost any sense of value and reality. That is almost $300,000 after tax dollars which would be higher than the net worth of all but the upper 1.5% of people in the world. Given that school is in session only about 36 weeks per year , we are talking over $2000 after tax dollars per week. This is absurd by any standard. And with the rate of increase, it will be $500,000 in another five to seven years. Even the people who can afford to pay this will begin to look upon it as being absurd.</p>

<p>And to say to someone that is only paying $50,000 per year that this is a discount is the height of absurdity</p>

<p>Seems to be in keeping with the whole yougetwhatyoupayfor mindset that is so pervasive in our country. Realtors think you wouldn't buy a house from them unless the vehicle they drive is expensive and screams success. Lawyers feel the need to exude money in their daily lifestyle and portray success in order to get business. </p>

<p>It's the new version of keeping up with the Jones'--If we pay a lot for 'most anything, it reinforces our self-esteem and makes us feel good about ourselves! Isn't this saying the same thing about sending kids to colleges that cost way more than they should? That school can't be any good if it costs a mere $25,000 a year, now can it??!! Besides, shouldn't I show kids just how much I love them---that I love them so much that I'm prepared to go into huge debt to provide them with a high-priced education??</p>

<p>A few years ago, I read about the marketing firm that helped establish the price of a new luxury SUV. The Lexus SUV was orignially priced about $12,000 less than it's original sticker price. Marketing studies showed that their target 'audience' was more likely to buy it if they were required to pay closer to $40,000! So they reworked the trim packages and threw in free rentals when vehicles were in the shop for service. As a result these vehicles have sold like hotcakes! CRAZY!!</p>

<p>University of Rochester, on the other hand, lowered their tuition a few years ago--their then president said that it would increase applications and it did. They decided that the "Rice" way was the path to go.</p>

<p>More quotes from the article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
But they do apparently want a deal, or at least the perception of one. Lucie Lapovsky, a consultant who was once president of Mercy College in New York, conducted a study asking students to choose between a college charging $20,000 and offering no aid, and one charging $30,000 and offering a $10,000 scholarship. Students chose the pricier option.</p>

<p>“Americans seem to like college on sale,” Dr. Lapovsky said.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The biggest expenditure at liberal arts colleges is for salaries and benefits. With competition for big-name professors becoming more intense, faculty salaries have increased. So has the pay of college and university presidents, more than 100 of whom now receive at least $500,000 a year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In 1972, someone we knew became an assistant prof at HYP at the grand salary of $12k. In 1980, the same beginning assistant professor at HYP would probably earn around $20k. In 2006, the same assistant professor would earn $50k+.
As well, the faculty in 1980 was relatively young. Since the retirement age has been lifted, there's been fewer incentives for profs to retire early and in fact, there have been disincentives insofar as health benefits are reduced for retirees. So the retirement age has effectively moved from 65 to 70, with many of the profs who were hired as young assistant professors in the 1960s and 1970s teaching past 70.
Not only has that been expensive for universities, but it has also greatly reduced their ability to hire younger profs with more up-to-date training.</p>

<p>I wonder what the actual cost of educating students at the top-tier public universities is (compared to the private colleges and universities discussed here). The public schools are partially subsidized by tax dollars and their students are not paying the full cost of their educations.</p>

<p>This exchange dates from a dozen years ago:</p>

<p><a href="http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Eschwrtz/Rpts/R8a.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/Rpts/R8a.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
In my Report #8, dated December 20, 1993, concerned with the
impacts of increasing student fees, I looked into a question that
had previously been obscured: What is the per-student cost of
undergraduate instruction at UC? The UC President's Office has used
the figure $12,168 as the full cost of instruction in 1991-92,
averaging all General Campus instruction over all students. In my
analysis, I separated the undergraduate portion from the graduate
portion and found a current cost of $5,040 per-student per-year for
undergraduate education (covering "tuition plus fees"), noting that
this figure was less than one-half of the amount claimed by the UC
administration. This raised a fundamental challenge to the
University's current plans and financial policies, affecting not
only the level of undergraduate student fees but also the future
support of faculty research and graduate education.</p>

<p>The most often used measure of educational quality is the
Student/Faculty Ratio. The Office of the President says UC's ratio
is 18.6, while its four public comparison schools average 17.8 and
its four private comparison schools average 10.4. Here, again, I
say one should separate undergraduate students from graduate
students in calculating Student/Faculty Ratios. Using data provided
by UCOP and CPEC I have calculated the following:</p>

<p>Table 1. Ratio of Undergraduate Students to Faculty</p>

<p>University of California 15.1
Average of 4 Public Comparison Universities 12.9
Average of 4 Private Comparison Universities 5.0</p>

<pre><code> The huge difference between the top and the bottom numbers in
</code></pre>

<p>this Table has its historical roots in the mission of the public
universities to educate large numbers of undergraduates, while the
elite private research universities (Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale)
have kept their undergraduate classes small. By this measure an
undergraduate education at the elite private universities is far
richer, and thus the far higher tuitions they charge may be
justified. Conversely, UC (and the other public universities)
cannot justify anything close to those sky-high fees; and UC even
looks somewhat worse than the comparison public universities.<br>
(Looking at graduate students only, the ratio is rather close among
all these schools; and this reflects the real basis for the
selection of comparison institutions.)</p>

<pre><code> This new data casts further doubt upon the moral legitimacy,
</code></pre>

<p>and even upon the marketability, of higher undergraduate fees at UC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>amherst has appeared to make the decision that thye are only interested in families that are overly concerned about brand, and will become a "boutique " brand. I am not from NE, but what is the reputation on the street about Amherst grads? </p>

<p>Had a D who turned down ND last year, and we saw no evidence that they had any interest in helping us with costs. They are smart enough there to be very kind and considerate of your additional requests, but they say NO with a smile and a god bless, but dont provide any additional money as they have raised tuiton. ND is no longer remotely affordable unless you are super rich. Family income is in the 2xx,xxx range, and we cant afford 45k per year, with 2 other kids coming right behind and private HS. we dont live large and dont waste money. dont have a car with less than 75k on it in my garage. shame</p>

<p>Yes, it's true, we measure quality by price. But how else would you measure quality? Besides price and USN&WR ranking, what else is there? The example used in the article is pretty obvious to me: Most people would prefer to attend a $40k college with $20k in "scholarship" than pay full price at a $20k college. I wonder if lower income students on a full ride no-family-contribution aid package at Harvard (or Princeton, where even the elite "eating club" is covered) feel they are getting a worthless education since they are paying nothing.</p>

<p>University of Richmond got tired of being a bargain school and jacked up tuition bigtime (last year? or 2 yrs ago). </p>

<p>Was part of that article authored by mini? Hasn't he been telling us that $40k is a subsidized bargain and that colleges should be raising tuition?</p>

<p>Only in America, with the miracle of mass marketing, could something that costs $40K per year be considered "a subsidized bargain" Amazing</p>