To add to #71, you’ll also see more of those LACs go test-optional too.
Basically do anything to keep the numbers and ranking up high enough yet keep the money flowing in as well.
The really audacious may simply just lie about their numbers. There is one highly-ranked LAC that seems to do so (it is also test-optional and also starts some kids in the spring) and seems to have suffered zero repercussions so far.
Not sure which school you are referring to, but a full-pay friend’s D with mediocre stats was admitted to Northeastern on the condition she study abroad first semester freshman year.
@TheGFG, NEU isn’t a LAC, so I’m not referring to them. NEU does openly admit to heavily gaming the USNews ranking, though.
No evidence that they are lying about their numbers, however. That’s on a completely different level.
Brian Kelly, USNews’ Chief Editor and Content Chief, fired off a reply to Bruni. I just saw it this morning. He says, Bruni would be better off investigating the “real issues” facing higher education today and he mentions, “rising tuition rates” and “ballooning student debt” among other things. That’s a lot of chutzpah coming from one of the chief driving forces behind higher college spending these past thirty years.
I dont see reporters of facts as drivers of anything. Many have the money spend on high quality ed. Those that dont should take another approach.
I am no rankings fanboy, but has USNWR really had a demonstrable effect on tuition costs?
@Postmodern wrote
Price is a function of demand and I don’t think there’s any question that USNews is the biggest force driving elite college demand today.
@barrons, by using money spent on students as a criteria (rather than some efficiency measure), they incent colleges to spend more and charge more.
The simple fact of the matter is that many facts can be gamed.
But @circuitrider , haven’t prices gone up consistently across the board, and not just at elite schools?
@PurpleTitan ,Can you cite evidence that this has caused prices to rise? I am not saying you can’t, I would genuinely like to see some.
Price is not always a function of demand. Sometimes raising prices stokes demand. GWU deliberately implemented “vanity pricing”, i.e. a deliberate price increase to project an image of luxury to stoke demand.
@Postmodern, what type of evidence are you looking for? Just for one, there’s an article that has been posted multiple times on CC how NEU’s strategy of climbing the USNews ranking. Most of them mean higher costs, and those costs have to be paid for somehow. In any case, the incentive is there.
@Postmodern wrote
There are price leaders in the higher education sector just as there are everywhere else. When Lexus raises its sticker price, can Toyota be very far behind? @PurpleTitan has described the system very well as one that can be easily gamed. All it takes is a few colleges with seemingly infinite price elasticity and a couple hundred others who feed off the crumbs that fall from their tables. No one, but, no one has ever fallen in the USNews surveys because they raised their tuition too much.
In any conversation about escalating costs of college, I think the role of subsidies (in this case scholarships) has to be discussed. “Don’t worry about sticker price because no one pays it” plays a big role. Just as you cannot discuss high medical costs without discussing the role of subsidies (in that case insurance).
I understand, @PurpleTitan , but your post said USNWR were responsible for skyrocketing tuitions and student debt, and I don’t think that’s the kind of thing you can say without something empirical to back it up.
If you could show how much NEU increased costs to game the NSN rankings and then an increase corresponding wih timelines and amounts then yes maybe. Until then, IMHO your point is “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc”
@Postmodern, I actually did not say that.
I said that the USNews rankings incent colleges to spend (but not to be efficient).
Please pay attention to who’s posting what.
@circuitrider ,That’s not how I understand economics work, unless the item in question is commoditized, like pork bellies or an airline seat. Lexus raising its prices has zero effect on what Toyota can claim from the marketplace.
@Postmodern, you need to take more economics.
@PurpleTitan , you are correct about your first point. You did not make the original post and I apologize for not reading back to be sure what you were responding to. My bad. Although in my defense, you did respond to my post about circuitriders comment so it was an easy error to make.
Your second post, however, is not only a rude ad-hominem, it’s also 100% wrong.
Toyota can charge what the demand for Toyotas is, and nothing more. The demand for a Lexus has no effect.
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
@Postmodern, consider it rude if you like, but your certitude despite being wrong just proves my point as you clearly have not studied econ enough yet to have read up on the substitution effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_effect.
Which is a little strange as I’m pretty certain that stuff is covered in any Econ 101 class these days.
^^^ Again, @PurpleTitan , ad hominem. I will try not to drop to that level and simply point out that the substitution effect you mention strengthens my point.
“The substitution effect is the economic understanding that as prices rise — or income decreases — consumers will replace more expensive items with less costly alternatives” Has nothing to do with similar goods raising prices to keep pace with each other. Quite the opposite, in fact, it states that if Lexus raised it’s price, and Toyota does as well, people would buy Hyundais.
Read more: Substitution Effect Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/substitution-effect.asp#ixzz4LNmBBtb2
It also does not contradict, negate or effect the law of supply and demand in any way.
I do consider it rude to say something like “you need to take more economics” without anything empirical supporting it. If anything I posted seemed in that vein please let me know and I will adjust. If you wish to continue to discuss things in that way I would prefer you not and I will not engage again if you do.
I would also suggest we stop arguing economics and go back to the original points regarding USNWR being responsible for the dramatic increase in tuition and the student debt crisis.