The introduction of this report provides the standard background data about (1) the influx of 20.4 million new students by 2016 (NCES data), including many minority and immigrant populations who have had inconsistent academic preparation for college; (2) the rapidly rising cost of a college degree which has more than doubled as a percentage of family income over the past two decades (data from the Losing Ground 2004 report which I believe is also in the Measuring Up 2008 report); (3) competition from other countries who are educating their younger workers at a faster rate than the U.S. (Measuring Up 2006 and Measuring Up 2008); and, (4) growing demands for accountability, transparency and assessment in higher education (e.g., the Spellings Commission).  The authors of the report mention that in over a decade of researching how different groups view large-scale public issues, the only way to work toward a resolution is to have all of the constituents agree on a common definition of the problem.  Based on their interviews of the 30 college and university presidents AND their public opinion research studies related to higher education over the past decade, the authors believe that most of the college presidents hold a different opinion about the issues than the general public.

The authors state that the college and university presidents believe that the three iron triangle factors of cost, quality, and access are “linked in an unbreakable reciprocal relationship, such that any change in one will inevitably impact the others.”  The authors cite previous research where (1) 56% of the public believes that colleges could spend less and still maintain high quality, (2) 52% of the public believes that colleges and universities are a business “with an eye on the bottom line,” (3) 40% of the public believes that “waste and mismanagement is a factor in driving up the cost of college,” and (4) more than 6 out of 10 government and business leaders believe that higher education is “too bureaucratic and resistant to change.”

The interviews and quotes in the report are anonymous.  They are organized around five parts:  (1) overview, (2) cost, (3) access, (4) quality and accountability, and (5) the way forward.  If you only have the time to read part of the report, read the introduction, Part V, The Way Forward, and the Afterward.  The consensus of the presidents as portrayed by the researchers is that government needs to pay more money if they expect increased access, quality and affordability.  The individual quotes are telling.  It is interesting to me that none of the presidents interviewed suggested utilization of technology to expand access and improve affordability as some distance education institutions have managed to do.

After reading the report, I can only predict the issues and the debate regarding higher education to continue at the legislative and executive branch level despite the sighs of relief from some now that we have “a professor in the White House.”  There are institutions that focus on the issues of access, affordability and quality.  Fourteen of us joined together to form Transparency by Design, about which I intend to write in the future.  I think the public is responding to institutions that focus on the three corners of the triangle by applying to and attending institutions who believe in their ability to improve the 3 without government intervention.  Read the report and let me know whether you agree with my assessment or not.

The College Board states that all costs of college attendance are important and that often, costs such as room and board and books influence the ability of a student to afford college more so than tuition and fees.  The College Board encourages readers to cite or reproduce the data as long as they are given proper attribution, so I’ll list a few facts that I found interesting in this year’s report.

In 2008-2009, the average published tuition and fees increased:
 Public four year   6.4%
 Private four year  5.9%
 Public two year    4.7%
 For profits           4.5%
The public four year in-state tuition and fees averaged $6,585 plus $7,748 room and board for a total charge average of $14,333.

Page 7 of this year’s report has an interesting chart called “Variation in Tuition and Fees, 2008-09.”  This chart shows the distribution in tuition and fees by category.  For example, 78% of public four year colleges have tuition and fees less than $9,000 annually whereas only 7% of private four year colleges and universities fall into that category (note that APUS‘ full-time undergraduate tuition and fees would be $7,500 per annum).  Another interesting chart examines the variation in tuition and fees and notes that while public four year colleges increased their tuition and fees on average 6.4% versus the 5.9% at private colleges, the dollar increase average at public four year colleges was $380 versus $1,484 at private colleges (due to the substantially higher tuition).

Net price is another area where the data collected is interesting.  In 2008-2009, private college full-time students received an average financial aid award of $10,200.  This amount reflects all sources (institutional and federal) and includes the federal tax benefits.  Thus, the net tuition and fees average is reduced to $14,900 from $25,100.  At public four year colleges the average financial aid is $3,700 which reduces tuition and fees to $2,900 (net) from $6,600.  At two year colleges, full time students received $2,300 in aid reducing the $2,400 in tuition and fees to $100 net.

The net pricing data confirms other theories about college access including “the higher the tuition, the less affordable college attendance is for students in the lower income group.”  Measuring Up 2006 is a report published by The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.  In December, Measuring Up 2008 will be published.  That group breaks out the cost of college attendance by quintiles of family income.  The College Board states that “the federal Pell Grant program provides about half of the grants received by full-time students at public two year colleges and a quarter of the grants received by full-time students at public four year colleges, but only about 10% for students at private colleges.”  With the wide disparity in net price cited above (from $14,900 to $2,900 to $100), it’s understandable why students from families with lower incomes would choose more affordable options or no college at all.

Concerns about the cost of college attendance caused Congress to act.  The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) passed in July of this year has a number of cost-related disclosure and reporting requirements for colleges.  Among them, HEOA introduces the concept of net price (similar to the above except it does not include the federal tax benefits received by a student), requires the Department of Education to publish on its website the top five percent of colleges and universities with (1) the highest tuition and fees for the most recent academic year, (2) the highest net price for the most recent academic year, (3) the largest percentage increase in tuition and fees over the most recent three academic  years, and (4) the largest percentage increase in net price over the most recent three academic years.  These reports will be categorized among nine institutional categories.  Schools in the lists on (3) and (4) will have to submit a written report to the Department of Education explaining the increases and the steps that they’re taking to reduce future costs of attendance.

Affordability can expand access to college.  It will be interesting to see if the current economic downturn will change the pricing trends or if they will accelerate upward due to some of the budgetary crises at the state level and the endowment issues at the private college level.