Kristilyn Webb

October 22, 2014

Writing 2010-091
Courtney, Jennifer

Increasing Costs in Higher Education/Synthesis 2

This synthesis focuses on the increasing costs of higher education. I will talk about
some of the reasons for tuition increases as well as its positive and negative consequences.
Does the positive outweigh the negative? Are there secondary and tertiary impacts of
negative consequences?
I will also address ideas for problem solving and include topics such as class sizes and
tuition capping. This paper will also confront the notion of state tuition control as well as
some of its benefits and disadvantages.
Reasons for Tuition Increases in Higher Education:
In reviewing literature on increasing costs in higher education and tuition hikes, I will
show that the negative consequences presented by certain authors outweigh the positive
impacts shown by others. I will show that solving the problem of high tuition costs are
complex and will take more thought than the ideas presented in the articles that I have
reviewed. Each of the solutions presented to solve increasing tuition costs have their own
risks which seem to not outweigh the benefit of the solution.
There are many reasons why tuition is raised in higher education institutions.
According to a review done by Edward St. John, three main blames for cost are how faculty
preferences influence development policies, the quest for program rankings, and prestige
pricing. (St. John 2) Although these are individual issues, they fit together in one package
since renowned members faculty elicit higher salaries as well as drive program rankings
setting the universities prestige as well as influencing their disciplines within the budget plan.
It is important to note that prestige challenges pricing and student financial aid, making
1

student debt higher creating a large gap between what student grants will cover. Using
Cornell as an example, in his review, St. John also brings forward the point that the
privatization of higher education institutions is happening to public universities because of
limited state funding and decline of public funding.
Robert B. Archibald and David H. Feldman point out that in addition to St. Johns
review of reasons, poor management within the higher education system where revenue is not
maximized also effects costs, as does government regulations which create expanded duties
for higher education (Archibald 269) which cause tuition increases. They also argue that
university behavior gives an upward tuition trend consequence. Examples of university
behavior are: growing administrative staffing, and what David J, Weerts calls, institutions
lack of commitment to addressing societal needs. (Weerts 134) When an institution fails to
address societal needs, public and state funding decrease and tuition is raised. When funding
is cut, there is an increased rate of student attrition, a reduction in faculty salaries, and
enrollment tightens. (Weerts 133)
Aside from university behavior, there are other reasons why funding on the state level
is cut. One reason is that the rate of tuition increase has outpaced the rate of inflation.
Another reason that hits us close to home here at the University of Utah, is that in Utah alone,
major changes in tax structure and rates from the years 2008-2012 have caused a decline in
funding (notwithstanding tuition increases) of over 30% and has cost universities as well as
public schools over a billion dollars. (Campbell 285)
Compacting the problem of tax structure changes and rate changes is the competition
for scarce funding (Weerts 136). A catch 22 cycle has been created with lack of state
appropriated funds, leading to program cuts, which leads to tightening enrollments, which
leads to increase tuition, which leads to decline of public support, which leads to lack of state
funding, which lands right back to the heart of the issue of increased tuition.

Other reason for tuition increases include: increased availability of federal financial
aid (Sundt 146), demographic changes (Campbell 284), economic downturn (Archibald 269),
and rising costs of research (Archibald 270). Increased availability in federal financial aid
has allowed students easier access to borrowing and Universities has seen that funding source
as a vacuum to be filled, in which they have. A downturn in the economy leads to decreases
in state grant spending, which effects enrollment (Heller 82) thus again initiating a catch 22.
When enrollment is down and the state decreases grant spending, demography changes in that
there is a lower number of citizens who have sought higher education and state tax revenues
are negatively impacted. Heller reminds us that the same fiscal pressures that cause states to
cut back on their appropriations to public institutions, which often result in increased tuition
prices, can also affect spending in state financial aid, which in turn affects the ability for
students to receive financial aid.
Negative and Positive Consequences of Tuition Hikes:
There are so many negative consequences of tuition hikes that it is hard to narrow the
list down. Some of the major consequences include: financial strain on families, outpacing of
financial aid, increases in student grant spending, decline in public enrollment, privatization
of higher education, tightening enrollments, decline in faculty salaries, and students inability
to afford higher education.
Increases in tuition create an incredible strain in families. Not only are parents of
students holding off on being able to retire in order to pay for their child(rens) college (Heller
86), but many have to have their children turn to other options to pay for higher education.
One option in the past has been for the perspective student to join the military. But, with the
downturn in the economy as well as budget cuts within the Department of Defense,
enlistment opportunities are being cut to accommodate budget cuts making this an unviable
option for many seeking education benefits from the VA) student loan debt. The other option

for students is to burden themselves with debt. (Archibald 290) This has negative
consequence as not all fields of study, namely in the humanities, yield high enough salaries to
counter the debt burden.
With tuition outpacing financial aid (Sundt 145), oftentimes a students college
expense is not entirely covered by financial aid. Grant moneys are not stretching as far in
expense payment. This leads to a decline in public enrollment which takes from accounts
receivable portion of funds that universities receive, thus creating a need to hike tuition.
There is also the issue of decreased enrollment in regards to faculty. Faculty is cut and
salaries remain stagnant when enrollment is down and funding is scarce and when tuition is
raised, as stated before, enrollment goes down.
Is there a positive side to increasing tuition? Archibald and Feldman seem to think so.
Some of the positive consequences to tuition increases include: higher quality education,
better technological processes (Archibald 272), research, and prestige.
When an institution raise tuition, it enables them to attract star faculty (St. John 3)
who drive innovation and are the forefathers on the frontlines of research and program
notoriety, which generates prestige. Prestige, in turn generates high quality education and
higher numbers in enrollment. Higher enrollment generates funds to improve on
technological processes (Archibald 271) and maintain coveted faculty members (St. John 3).
So do the positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences?
In my analyzing of the data, I would say no. There are not many public universities that can
afford prestige at the cost of tuition increases. For example, it would be easier for a graduate
from an Ivy league institution to pay of student loan debt from the job availability they would
have over the prestige of the university that they attended more than it would be for a
graduate of a regular, public university to pay off loan debt for the fact that it would be not
unheard of, but less likely for them to have the same, higher-paying job opportunities.

What are possible solutions to keep tuition for higher education from increasing?
Some ideas for possible solutions have been proposed. They include: state control of
tuition, increased class sizes, tuition capping, and increasing public funding. As I have read
each of the proposed solutions, I see negative consequences that follow each.
State control of tuition setting would allow, as Heller put it, responsibility for all
sectors of public higher education to more easily balance policies in each to ensure that goals
of equality of opportunity remain at the forefront of state policy. But, state could potentially
decrease state grant spending, thus leading to a decline in enrollment. (Heller 83) Also, if we
rely on the states economic status to fund college, many will be denied the opportunity to
higher education in economically depressed times, which are guaranteed to happen. This will
decrease employment opportunities which will also negatively impact the economy.
A negative effect of increased class size is decline in quality of education. Archibald
and Feldman point out that adding more students to each class can diminish the benefit for
each student, leading to diminished outcomes and lower graduation rates. (Archibald 270)
So what about tuition capping? Archibald and Feldman also comment on this stating that
universities will have to limit their spending which will constrain and set limitations on
quality programs. So that leads us to increased public funding. Well, the notion of that is
great, but if a public university to left to more heavily rely on public funding, it can become a
burden on the public.
Conclusion:
In this paper, I have reviewed literature on increasing costs in higher education and
tuition hikes, I have talked about some of the negative consequences presented by certain
authors and shown that positive impacts do not outweigh the negative consequences of
raising tuition.

Solving the problem is complex and will take more thought than the ideas presented
in the articles that I have reviewed, due to the fact that each of the solutions presented have
their own risks which seem to not outweigh the benefit of the solution.
Archibald and Feldman state that a college or university can only achieve higher
quality if it is willing and able to pay higher educational costs (Archibald 271) Yet, there
is a delicate balance that needs to be respected and maintained between raising tuition and
gaining funding from other resources so that those higher educational costs can be paid for.
I would like to see more research done on if there are public universities that have
been able to be successful in cutting costs while maintaining value to the community through
offering programs that will promote research, job growth, and commitment to lower tuition. I
would also like to see research done on whether or not candidacy at the state level has in the
past effected funding for public higher education, either for or against, by legislative action
and if it has added to the success of better funded public universities.

Works Cited
Archibald, Robert B. and David H. Feldman. "Explaining Increases in Higher Education Costs." The
Journal of HIgher Education 79.3 (2008): 268-295. Project MUSE.Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://muse.jhu.edu>.
Campbell, Kim and Cade Charlton amd John Maynes and Richard West. "Utah." Journal of Education
Finance 39.3 (2014): 283-286. Project MUSE.Web. 4 October 2014. <http://muse.jhu.edu>.
Heller, Donald E. "The Effects of Tuition and State Financial Aid on Public College Enrollment." The
Review of Higher Education 23.1 (1999): 65-89. Project MUSE.Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://muse.jhu.edu>.
St. John, Edward. "Tuition Rising: Why Colleges Cost So Much (review)." The Review of Higher
Education 27.2 (2004): 294-295. Project MUSE.Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://muse.jhu.edu>.
Sundt, Melora. "The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College (review)." The
Journal of General Education 51.2 (2002): 144-148. Project MUSE.Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://muse.jhu.edu>.
Weerts, David J. "State Funding and the Engaged University: Understanding Community Engagement
and State Appropriations for Higher Education." The Review of Higher Education 38.1 (2014):
133-169. Project MUSE.Web. 4 October 2014. <http://muse.jhu.edu>.