Research in Higher Education

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 169–179

The role of the student in the higher education production function

  • Jane Louise Johnson


Increasing concern with productivity and efficiency in service industries such as higher education has created interest in cost analysis techniques, implicit in which must be some notion of the production function, that is, the technology by which inputs are combined to produce outputs. In order to clarify the existing confusion in higher education between inputs and outputs, and to offer aid in understanding the complex issues of productivity and efficiency, this paper offers a paradigm of the student as an economic entity analogous to the profit-maximizing firm in microeconomic theory. The paper concludes by suggesting an extension of the model to include the faculty member as an individual economic agent.

Key words

production function higher education productivity efficiency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balderston, F.E.Thinking about the outputs of higher education. (University of California, Office of the Vice President-Planning & Analysis: Research Projects in University Administration) Paper P-5, May 1970.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G.Human Capital. A Theoretical & Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. 2nd ed. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. Breneman, D. An economic theory of Ph.D. production: The case at berkeley. (Ford Foundation Program for Research in University Administration, Report P-8) 1971.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D.G. A scheme for measuring the output for higher education. InThe Outputs of Higher Education (B. Lawrence, G. Weathersby, and V. Patterson, Eds.) Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, July 1970. ED 043 296 (ERIC).Google Scholar
  5. Demerath, N.J., Stephens, R.W. and Taylor, R.R.Power, Presidents, & Professors. New York: Basic Books, 1967.Google Scholar
  6. Friedman, M.Price Theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1962.Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, M. The methodology of positive economics. InEssays in Positive Economics, (M. Friedman, Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
  8. Henderson, A.D. Some unresolved problems. Remarks delivered on the occasion of his citation by the Higher Education Colloquium, March 17, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. Norlove, M. “On tuition and the costs of higher education: prolegomena to a conceptual framework. InInvestment in Higher Education — The Equity-Efficiency Quandry, (T. W. Schultz, Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972, pp. 178–218.Google Scholar
  10. Schultz, T.W. Resources for higher education: an economist's view.Journal of Political Economy 1968,76 327–347.Google Scholar
  11. Stecklein, J.E. Approaches to measuring workload over the past two decades. InAssessing Faculty Effort, (James J. Doi, Ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. Toombs, W.Productivity: Burden of Success. (ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 2.) Washington: American Association for Higher Education, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. Vaizey, J. The outputs of higher education—their proxies, measurement, and evaluation. InThe Outputs of Higher Education B. Lawrence, et al. Ed. Boulder, CO: Western Insterstate Commission for Higher Education, July 1970, pp. 18–23. ED 043 296 (ERIC).Google Scholar
  14. Wendel, F.C.Work Load Factors of College Staff Members. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1969.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© APS Publications, Inc. 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Louise Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.Higher Education DQ-12University of WashingtonSeattle

Personalised recommendations