» This Story:Read +|Talk +| Comments
Page 2 of 2   <      

An Ivory Tower of Pricing

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

But schools are quickly reaching the point of diminishing return. There are now so few students paying full price that every dollar increase in tuition yields less and less in added revenue. Moreover, by continually pushing up the posted price, schools are having trouble attracting students from middle-class families that don't qualify for as much aid and can't afford the increases.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

3. The most significant cost driver these days is the "arms race" for the best students and faculty.

Schools have figured out that they can attract the best students by offering more "merit scholarships" (aid not based on need), better dorms, better food, successful athletic teams, fancy new gyms, the latest technology. All this costs lots of money.

They have also learned they can attract faculty superstars with big pay packages, well-equipped labs and light teaching loads. The superstars, in turn, attract other good faculty and students.

The problem with these strategies is that once every school starts playing the same game, no school is able to significantly improve its relative position, which is how competition is waged in higher education. But what they all face are increased costs that drive up tuition.

4. Higher education has done a lousy job of trying to lower costs by improving productivity.

The economist William Baumol famously observed that there are some activities, like playing a Beethoven cello concerto, that can't be done more productively -- it always takes one musician 33 minutes. And a lot about teaching, one-on-one or small-group interactions between students and teachers, is similar.

But not all of education need be infected with "Baumol's disease." It may take Yo-Yo Ma 33 minutes to play that concerto, but through the magic of digital recording, an infinite number of people can listen to world's best anytime they want, at a fraction of the cost of a Kennedy Center ticket. And the same could be true of the college lecture, delivered by the best lecturers in the English-speaking world.

Of course, you'd still want the lectures supplemented by faculty-led discussions. But if you combine those recorded lectures with creative use of interactive, computerized instructional materials and quizzes, it's hard to imagine that you couldn't dramatically reduce faculty costs while boosting the quality of education.

5. Colleges raise tuition prices excessively because they can, not because they must.

One reason is that demand is growing faster than supply.

Another is that many customers are insensitive to price increases, particularly at elite universities. Students from lower-income families are shielded from the effect of price increases by various forms of student aid. And students from wealthy families are falling over themselves for the chance to pay an extra thousand or two for the credentialing and networking value of a degree from an elite university. That limits the brunt of the impact on the middle class.

Once elite schools lead the way with their price increases, it's easier for everyone else to follow. And in a strange way, they are almost encouraged to do so by many students and their families who -- despite all their whining about college costs -- believe that higher tuition is somehow a sign of higher quality and status.

In fact, surveys have shown that students would much prefer to go to a school that charges $30,000 in fees and services and offers them a $10,000 scholarship than attend a school that charges $20,000 and offers no aid. And some schools that have found that they can actually boost the quality and quantity of their applicant pool by increasing their tuition.

For the most part, the higher education establishment thinks there is nothing wrong with this perverse market, or at least nothing that a little more government subsidy won't solve. But there are a few brave dissenters, among them William Kirwan, chancellor of the University of Maryland system, whose efforts to improve productivity will be the subject of Friday's column.


<       2


» This Story:Read +|Talk +| Comments
© 2007 The Washington Post Company