Thanks for this. Worth noting that net cost of room and board has gone up beyond inflation over the same time frame, so total cost of attendance increases vs. inflation is a somewhat different story (at least through 2020; https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-room-board-at-college) . Also, institutions seem to continue this fig-leaf on tuition pricing in part 'cause no one wants to be honest first -- which is probably smart 'game-theory' for any but the top 10 universities....
Thanks for your comments. To be clear, most of the numbers we are using in the post include total cost of attendance (tuition, books, room and board, other expenses) in the sticker price, and then those costs net of grant/scholarship aid in the net price. So increases in room and board are part of the calculations we report. Generally speaking, room and board costs go up in institutions where tuition prices go up, but at a slower rate.
The article and data are great. Thanks for providing the link to the IPEDS. I was wondering something similar to JB Holston - is there a way to pull out just tuition+fees?
I ask because room and board is often included in the price of college - but even if someone is not attending college, presumably they have to pay for somewhere to live and something to eat (in addition to utilities covered by living on campus that one might have to pay if renting or buying their own place).
Yes, one can use the IPEDS data to get just tuition and fees and exclude costs of living, which are a very substantial part of the bill. (The percentage change over time is pretty similar if you just look at tuition.) If an 18 year old were to get their own place, as opposed to living in their parents' home, they would incur additional costs. We talked about this in a piece this fall... a surprisingly large and rapidly growing number of folks who don't go to college continue living with their parents into their late 20s and 30s. Whether their parents regard that as a "saving" or not is a different question...
Such an important topic and so well written. I think this advertised price vs. actual price is really hurting families and higher education as a whole. More parents with young children can now breezily dismiss the idea of their kids going to anything other than a low-cost college or maybe not even going to college - they'd never be able to afford $50 or $100,000 a year that college costs. You can scratch this myth of pretty easily and see the truth, but I think increasing anti-intellectualism or the real or perceived lack of social mobility may also be something going on here. With future college costs conveniently out of the way, your family can then spend $5,000 a year on Disney World freely and happily.
I agree that advertising a price that is much higher than the actual price has *really* hurt the reputations, not just of the specific universities engaging in that practice, but of higher education as a whole. Students and families who are (wrongly) convinced that higher education is unaffordable will act like it, to their detriment and that of the economy as a whole.
Fascinating read! Interesting to see the relationship between sticker price and enrollment. I wonder, what share of all students enrolled attend these higher sticker price colleges? Could this be a self-selection of sorts effects?
Good question! Looking at the most recent year of data, 15.4% of higher education institutions had a sticker price greater than $70,000, and these institutions represented 8.8% of total four-year enrollment. If you look at net price, 6.8% of institutions charged an average net price greater than $70,000 and only 1.2% of students attended these institutions.
Fascinating article. I have a couple of questions about your methodology. When calculating your net price, did you use student-level data, or the average costs and grant/scholarships that are published by IPEDS? The average grant/scholarship figures that are published are only for grant/scholarship recipients, so the average across all students would be lower. Also, did you include only in-state residents, or did you also include non-residents? Non-residents costs are significantly higher since they pay out-of-state tuition, so it could impact the results. I would appreciate any insight that you can share. Thank you kindly.
Thanks for the questions! In the post we are using the net price based on the average for grant/scholarship recipients, so you're right that the net price for the entire cohort will be different. But if you look at the share of the cohort that is getting financial aid, you can do two things. One, you can look at whether more or fewer people are getting financial aid over time (its more.) Two, you can construct a different measure of the netprice by using a share weighted average of net price (with aid) and sticker price (without aid). The exact numbers change, but the overall picture of declining costs of attendance holds up, particularly for the last decade. The public data focus only on costs of attendance for the in-state students; the last section talks about how including out of state students changes the total tuition raised per student (and lowers the cost to in-state students in the process.)
Thanks for this. Worth noting that net cost of room and board has gone up beyond inflation over the same time frame, so total cost of attendance increases vs. inflation is a somewhat different story (at least through 2020; https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-room-board-at-college) . Also, institutions seem to continue this fig-leaf on tuition pricing in part 'cause no one wants to be honest first -- which is probably smart 'game-theory' for any but the top 10 universities....
Thanks for your comments. To be clear, most of the numbers we are using in the post include total cost of attendance (tuition, books, room and board, other expenses) in the sticker price, and then those costs net of grant/scholarship aid in the net price. So increases in room and board are part of the calculations we report. Generally speaking, room and board costs go up in institutions where tuition prices go up, but at a slower rate.
The article and data are great. Thanks for providing the link to the IPEDS. I was wondering something similar to JB Holston - is there a way to pull out just tuition+fees?
I ask because room and board is often included in the price of college - but even if someone is not attending college, presumably they have to pay for somewhere to live and something to eat (in addition to utilities covered by living on campus that one might have to pay if renting or buying their own place).
Yes, one can use the IPEDS data to get just tuition and fees and exclude costs of living, which are a very substantial part of the bill. (The percentage change over time is pretty similar if you just look at tuition.) If an 18 year old were to get their own place, as opposed to living in their parents' home, they would incur additional costs. We talked about this in a piece this fall... a surprisingly large and rapidly growing number of folks who don't go to college continue living with their parents into their late 20s and 30s. Whether their parents regard that as a "saving" or not is a different question...
Such an important topic and so well written. I think this advertised price vs. actual price is really hurting families and higher education as a whole. More parents with young children can now breezily dismiss the idea of their kids going to anything other than a low-cost college or maybe not even going to college - they'd never be able to afford $50 or $100,000 a year that college costs. You can scratch this myth of pretty easily and see the truth, but I think increasing anti-intellectualism or the real or perceived lack of social mobility may also be something going on here. With future college costs conveniently out of the way, your family can then spend $5,000 a year on Disney World freely and happily.
I agree that advertising a price that is much higher than the actual price has *really* hurt the reputations, not just of the specific universities engaging in that practice, but of higher education as a whole. Students and families who are (wrongly) convinced that higher education is unaffordable will act like it, to their detriment and that of the economy as a whole.
Fascinating read! Interesting to see the relationship between sticker price and enrollment. I wonder, what share of all students enrolled attend these higher sticker price colleges? Could this be a self-selection of sorts effects?
Good question! Looking at the most recent year of data, 15.4% of higher education institutions had a sticker price greater than $70,000, and these institutions represented 8.8% of total four-year enrollment. If you look at net price, 6.8% of institutions charged an average net price greater than $70,000 and only 1.2% of students attended these institutions.
Fascinating article. I have a couple of questions about your methodology. When calculating your net price, did you use student-level data, or the average costs and grant/scholarships that are published by IPEDS? The average grant/scholarship figures that are published are only for grant/scholarship recipients, so the average across all students would be lower. Also, did you include only in-state residents, or did you also include non-residents? Non-residents costs are significantly higher since they pay out-of-state tuition, so it could impact the results. I would appreciate any insight that you can share. Thank you kindly.
Thanks for the questions! In the post we are using the net price based on the average for grant/scholarship recipients, so you're right that the net price for the entire cohort will be different. But if you look at the share of the cohort that is getting financial aid, you can do two things. One, you can look at whether more or fewer people are getting financial aid over time (its more.) Two, you can construct a different measure of the netprice by using a share weighted average of net price (with aid) and sticker price (without aid). The exact numbers change, but the overall picture of declining costs of attendance holds up, particularly for the last decade. The public data focus only on costs of attendance for the in-state students; the last section talks about how including out of state students changes the total tuition raised per student (and lowers the cost to in-state students in the process.)