Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 141–178 | Cite as

Region, resources, and reason: A contextual analysis of state tuition and student aid policies

  • James C. Hearn
  • Carolyn P. Griswold
  • Ginger M. Marine
Article

Abstract

This paper reports on an investigation of differences and similarities across the 50 states in approaches to the pricing and discounting, via student aid, of undergraduate education. To examine national patterns in tuition and aid policies, the analysis used recent state-by-state data and multivariate statistical methods. The results suggest that region, social and economic resources, and postsecondary governance arrangements each have distinctive connections to the nature of states' tuition and aid policies. Of particular interest are the results relating to high-tuition/high-aid policies at the state level, an approach termed by proponents therationalization of tuition and aid policy. Multiple regression analysis revealed rationalization to be primarily a regionally driven phenomenon concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest. Rationalization showed weaker, but still significant, connections to the states' population, personal income levels, extent of reliance on private postsecondary institutions, and governance arrangements. Implications of these findings for theory and policy are discussed.

Keywords

Regression Analysis Statistical Method Multiple Regression Analysis State Level Income Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Astin, A. (1978). SISFAP-Study A: The impact of student financial aid programs on student college choice. Report on research supported by the Office of Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation, U.S. Office of Education, under Contract 300-75-0382. Available as ERIC Document 187 368.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, W. E., and Lewis, D. R. (eds.) (1992).The Economics of American Higher Education. Boston: Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, W. (1987). Our greedy colleges.New York Times, February 18, p. A31.Google Scholar
  4. Berdahl, R. O. (1971).Statewide Coordination of Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, M. C., and Toma, E. F. (1994). Variation in state education policies and effects on student performance.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(3): 477–491.Google Scholar
  6. Bowen, H. (1971). Finance and the aims of American higher education. In M. D. Orwig (ed.),Financing Higher Education: Alternatives for the Federal Government, pp. 155–170. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.Google Scholar
  7. Bowen, H. (1974). Financing higher education: The current state of the debate. In Kenneth E. Young (ed.),Exploring the Case for Low Tuition in Public Higher Education, pp. 11–31. Iowa City, IA: American Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, in cooperation with the American College Testing Program.Google Scholar
  8. Bowen, W., and Breneman, D. (1993). Student aid: Price discount or educational investment?Brookings Review, Winter: 95–97.Google Scholar
  9. Brandl, J. E. (1988). The legislative role in policy making for higher education. In S. Gove and T. Beyle (eds.),Governors and Higher Education, pp. 17–20. Denver: Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  10. Brimelow, P. (1987). The untouchables.Forbes, November 30, pp. 140–150.Google Scholar
  11. Cage M. C. (1994, April 13). Holding the tuition line: Private colleges appear to be responding to public pressure to keep costs down.Chronicle of Higher Education 40(32): A31–32.Google Scholar
  12. Callan, P. M. (1993). The California higher education policy vacuum. Report No. 93-2, California Higher Education Policy Center. San Jose, CA: California Higher Education Policy Center.Google Scholar
  13. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1973).Higher Education: Who Pays? Who Benefits? Who Should Pay? New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1975).Low or No Tuition: The Feasibility of a National Policy for the First Two Years of College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1976).The States and Higher Education: A Proud Past and a Vital Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1982).The Control of the Campus: A Report on the Governance of Higher Education. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Chronicle of Higher Education (1991).Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac 38(1): August 28. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  18. Chronicle of Higher Education (1992, March 25). States wrestle with proposals for higher tuition.Chronicle of Higher Education 38(29): A28–29.Google Scholar
  19. Chronicle of Higher Education (1994, March 16). Ways and means.Chronicle of Higher Education 40(28): A25.Google Scholar
  20. Clotfelter, C., Ehrenberg, R., Getz, M., and Siegfried, J. (1991).Economic Challenges in Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Committee on Economic Development (1973).The Management and Financing of Colleges. New York: Committee on Economic Development.Google Scholar
  22. Daniere, A. (1964).Higher Education in the American Economy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  23. Dressel, P. L. (ed.) (1980).The Autonomy of Public Colleges. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Evangelauf, J. (1994, October 5). Tuition rises again.Chronicle of Higher Education 41(6): A41, A49.Google Scholar
  25. Finn, C. (1984, May–June). Trying higher education: An eight count indictment.Change 16: 29–33, 47–51.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer, F. J. (1990). State financing of higher education: A new look at an old problem.Change 22(1): 42–56.Google Scholar
  27. Fiske, E. A. (1987a). How tuition costs are set: An education in itself.New York Times, May 14, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  28. Fiske, E. A. (1987b). Tuitions at new peak, heating cost debate.New York Times, May 12, p. 13.Google Scholar
  29. Floyd, C. E. (1982).State Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability: Approaches for Higher Education. AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, No. 6. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  30. Folger, J. K. (1981). Implications of state government changes. In P. Jedamus and M. W. Peterson (eds.),Improving Academic Management: A Handbook of Planning and Institutional Research, pp. 48–64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Friedman, M. (1968). The higher schooling in America.Public Interest, Spring: 108–112.Google Scholar
  32. Garms, W. I. (1986). The determinants of public revenues for higher and lower education: A thirty-year perspective.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 8(3): 277–293.Google Scholar
  33. Glazer, J. S. (1984). Terminating entrenched policies in educational institutions: A case history of free tuitions.Review of Higher Education 7(2): 159–173.Google Scholar
  34. Glenny, L. A. (1959).Autonomy of Public Colleges: The Challenges of Coordination. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Greer, D. G. (1992). Not an aid to education.AGB Reports, July/August: 10–13.Google Scholar
  36. Griswold, C. P., and Marine, G. M. Political influences on state policy: Higher-tuition, higher-aid and the real world.Review of Higher Education (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  37. Guerre, R. P. (1991). Financial aid in higher education: What's wrong, who's being hurt, and what's being done.Journal of College and University Law 17(4): 483–533.Google Scholar
  38. Halstead, K. (1991).State Profiles: Financing Public Higher Education—1978 to 1991. Washington, DC: Research Associates of Washington.Google Scholar
  39. Hansen, W. L., and Weisbrod, B. A. (1969).Benefits, Costs, and Finance of Public Higher Education. Chicago: Markham Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Hauptman, A. M. (1990).The College Tuition Spiral: An Examination of Why Charges Are Increasing. Washington, DC: The American Council on Education and The College Board.Google Scholar
  41. Healy, P. (1994, December 7). Tough choices on tuition: Public colleges hope efforts to control increases will be rewarded by lawmakers.Chronicle of Higher Education 41(15): A31, A34.Google Scholar
  42. Healy, P. (1995, February 10). Tug of war over student aid moves to the state capitols.Chronicle of Higher Education 41(22): A30–31.Google Scholar
  43. Hearn, J. C., and Anderson, M. S. (1989). Integrating postsecondary education financing policies: The Minnesota model. In R. H. Fenske (ed.),Studying the Impact of Student Aid on Institutions. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 62, pp. 55–73. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  44. Hearn, J. C., and Griswold, C. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16(2): 161–190.Google Scholar
  45. Hearn, J. C., and Longanecker, D. (1985). Enrollment effects of alternative postsecondary pricing policies.Journal of Higher Education 56(5): 485–508.Google Scholar
  46. Herzlinger, R. E., and Jones, F. (1981). Pricing public sector services: The tuition gap.Policy Sciences 13: 419–438.Google Scholar
  47. Hines, E. R. (1988).Higher Education and State Governments: Renewed Partnership, Cooperation, or Competition? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, No. 5. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, George Washington University.Google Scholar
  48. Hoenack, S. A. (1977). Direct and incentive planning within a university.Socioeconomic Planning Sciences 11: 191–204.Google Scholar
  49. Hoenack, S.A., and Pierro, D. J. (1990). An econometic model of a public university's income and enrollments.Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 14: 403–423.Google Scholar
  50. Johnson, G. P., and Leslie, L. L. (1976). Increasing public tuition in higher education: An alternative approach to the equity issue.Educational Administration Quarterly 12(1): 27–42.Google Scholar
  51. Johnson, J. L. (1981). Designing state student-aid policies for the 1980s. In L. L. Leslie and J. Hyatt (eds.),Higher Education Financing Policies: States, Institutions, and Their Interaction, pp. 34–40. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  52. Johnstone, D. B. (1992). Tuition fees. In G. Harmon (volume ed.), B. R. Clark, and G. Neave (editors in chief),Encyclopedia of Higher Education, vol. 2, pp. 1501–1509. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  53. Ketter, R. L. (1975). How much centralization is enough? In R. O. Berdahl (ed.),Evaluating Statewide Boards, pp. 79–85. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 5, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  54. Layzell, D. T., and Lyddon, J. W. (1990).Budgeting for Higher Education at the State Level: Enigma, Paradox, and Ritual. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 4. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, George Washington University.Google Scholar
  55. Lenth, C. S. (1993).The Tuition Dilemma—State Policies and Practices in Pricing Public Higher Education. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.Google Scholar
  56. Lewis, D. R., Boyer, C. M., Bruininks, R. H., and Kallsen, L. A. (1994). The governor's modest proposal: Full-cost tuition.Review of Higher Education 18(1): 95–109.Google Scholar
  57. López, M. (1993, April). High tuition, high aid won't work.Chronicle of Higher Education 39: B1, B2.Google Scholar
  58. Mazzoni, T. L. (1991). Analyzing state school policymaking: An arena model.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 13(2): 115–138.Google Scholar
  59. McConnell, T. R. (1962).A General Pattern for American Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  60. McGuinness, A. C., Jr. (1988).State Postsecondary Education Structures Handbook: 1988. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  61. McKeown, M. P. (1982, Summer). State policies on tuition and fees for public higher education.Journal of Education Finance 8: 1–19.Google Scholar
  62. McPherson, M. S., and Schapiro, M. O. (1991).Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  63. Millard, R. M. (1980). Power of state coordinating agencies. In P. Jedamus and M. W. Peterson (eds.),Improving Academic Management: A Handbook of Institutional Planning and Research, pp. 65–95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  64. Millett, J. D. (1975). State coordinating boards and statewide governing boards. In R. O. Berdahl (ed.),Evaluating Statewide Boards, pp. 61–70. New Directions for Institutional Research, vol. 2(1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  65. Millett, J. D. (1984).Conflict in Higher Education: State Government Coordination Versus Institutional Independence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  66. Mingle, J. R. (1992). Low tuition, progressive taxation.AGB Reports, pp. 9–13.Google Scholar
  67. Mortimer, K. R., and McConnell, T. R. (1982).Sharing Authority Effectively. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  68. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1992a).Digest of Education Statistics, 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  69. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1992b).State Higher Education Profiles, 4th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  70. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1994)The Condition of Education—1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  71. National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education (1993).Making College Affordable Again: Final Report. Washington, DC: National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education.Google Scholar
  72. O'Keefe, M. (1987). Where does the money really go?Change, November/December: 12–34.Google Scholar
  73. Ornstein, C. (1994, June 15). States spent $2.5 billion on student aid this year, the most ever.Chronicle of Higher Education 40(41): A28.Google Scholar
  74. Palola, E. B., Lehmann, T., and Blischke, W. R. (1970).Higher Education by Design: The Sociology of Planning. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  75. Pechman, J. A. (1970). The distributional effects of public higher education in California.Journal of Human Resources 5(3): 361–370.Google Scholar
  76. Peltzman, S. (1973, January–February). The effect of government subsidies-in-kind on private expenditures: The case of higher education.Journal of Political Economy 81: 1–27.Google Scholar
  77. Polsby, Nelson W. (1984). Political innovation in America: The politics of policy initiation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Reeher, K. R., and Davis, J. S. (1990).National Association of State Scholarship and Grant Programs 20th Annual Survey Report. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.Google Scholar
  79. Reich, R. B. (1991).The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st-Century Capitalism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  80. Rusk, J. J., and Leslie, L. L. (1978). The setting of tuition in public higher education.Journal of Higher Education 49(6): 531–547.Google Scholar
  81. St. John, E. P. (1992). Changes in pricing behaviors during the 1980's.Journal of Higher Education 63(2): 165–187.Google Scholar
  82. Savage, Robert L. (1978). Policy innovativeness as a trait of American states.Journal of Politics 40 (1):212–224.Google Scholar
  83. Stampen, J. (1980).The Financing of Public Higher Education: Low Tuition, Student Aid, and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  84. State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) (1988).Survey on Tuition Policy, Costs and Student Aid. Denver, CO: SHEEO.Google Scholar
  85. Tuma, N. B., and Hannan, M. T. (1984).Social Dynamics: Models and Methods. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  86. Volkwein, J. F. (1987). State regulation and campus autonomy. In J. C. Smart (ed.),Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 3, pp. 120–154. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  87. Walker, Jack L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states.American Political Science Review 63 (3): 880–899.Google Scholar
  88. Wallace, T. P. (1992). The inequities of low tuition.AGB Reports, May/June: 24–27.Google Scholar
  89. Werth, B. (1988). Why is college so expensive?: Maybe America wants it that way.Change, March/April: 13–25.Google Scholar
  90. Whitehead, J. S. (1973).The Separation of Church and State: Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Yale, 1776–1876. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wildavsky, A. (1986).Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes, 2nd rev. ed. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  92. Wilson, R. F., and Miller, J. L., Jr. (1980).Private College Participation in Planning and Program Review Activities of Forty-five State-level Higher Education Agencies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  93. Young, K. E. (1974).Exploring the Case for Low Tuition in Public Higher Education. Iowa City, IA: American Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, in cooperation with the American College Testing Program.Google Scholar
  94. Zapler, M. (1994, November 2). Tuition and training are top college issues in gubernatorial races.Chronicle of Higher Education 41(10): A54.Google Scholar
  95. Zumeta, W. (1992). State policies and private higher education.Journal of Higher Education 63(4): 363–417.Google Scholar
  96. Zumeta, W. (1994). Emerging choices in state financing policies for higher education: A national perspective. Paper presented at the annual research conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Chicago, October, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • James C. Hearn
    • 1
  • Carolyn P. Griswold
  • Ginger M. Marine
  1. 1.Institute of Higher EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations