Advertisement

Price Discrimination and Rising Costs: Is There Any Relationship?

  • Gregory Randolph
Chapter

Abstract

Institutions of higher learning in the US employ price discrimination, a practice that results in different students paying varying prices to attend the same school. Largely due to their ability to access personal financial information through their financial aid departments and the federal student aid program, colleges can tailor tuition rates according to an individual student’s financial situation (in addition to other student characteristics). This strategy has been used by colleges throughout the history of higher education to provide needy students with the opportunity to attend college, and help optimize enrollment decisions. While price discrimination enhances welfare by enabling students who would not attend college under a single pricing scheme, it can also be welfare reducing when schools employ strategies to attract full-pay students and limit financially needy students. Additionally, students are not aware of the exact tuition that they will ultimately pay until they are accepted by the college. Although this process enables schools to offer high sticker prices and makes it difficult for potential students to compare colleges by tuition before applying, price discrimination does not appear to be a primary cause of ­rising college costs.

Keywords

Consumer Surplus Price Discrimination College Entrance Examination Deadweight Loss Social Efficiency 
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.

References

  1. Archibald R (2002) Redesigning the financial aid system: why colleges and universities should switch roles with the federal government. Johns Hopkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. Avery C, Hoxby C (2004) Do and should financial aid packages affect students’ college choices? In: Hoxby C (ed) College decisions: the economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 239–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkner L, Wei C (2006) Student financing of undergraduate education: 2003-04, with a special analysis of the net price of attendance and federal education tax benefits. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Browning E, Zupan M (2005) Microeconomics: theory and application, 8th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  5. Doti J (2004) Is higher education becoming a commodity? J High Educ Policy Manage 26:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frank R (2001) Higher education: the ultimate winner-take-all market? In: Devlin M, Meyerson J (eds) Exploring the future of higher education: 2000 papers. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  7. Kane T (1999) The price of admission: rethinking how americans pay for college. Brookings, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Katz M (1984) Price discrimination and monopolistic competition. Econometrica 52:1453–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Katz M (1987) The welfare effects of third-degree price discrimination in intermediate good markets. Am Econ Rev 77:154–167Google Scholar
  10. Lawson R, Zerkle A (2006) Price discrimination in college tuition: an empirical case study. J Econ Finance Educ 5:1–7Google Scholar
  11. Leeson P, Sobel R (2008) Costly price discrimination. Econ Lett 99:206–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McPherson M, Schapiro M (1999) The student aid game: meeting need and rewarding talent in higher education. Princeton, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  13. Nicholson W (2004) Intermediate microeconomics and its application, 9th edn. South-Western, Mason, OHGoogle Scholar
  14. Noorbakshs A, Culp D (2001) Effects of key state policies on private colleges and universities: sustaining private sector capacity in the face of higher education access challenge. Econ Educ Rev 20:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Quirk M (2005) The best class money can buy. Atl Mon 296:128–134Google Scholar
  16. Redd K (2000) Discounting toward disaster: tuition discounting, college finances, and enrollments of low-income undergraduates. USA Group, Indianapolis, IN, pp 1–38Google Scholar
  17. Rolfe H (2003) University strategy in an age of uncertainty: the effect of higher education funding on old and new universities. Higher Educ Quart 57:24–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rothschild M, White L (1995) The analytics of the pricing in higher education and other services which the consumers are inputs. J Polit Econ 103:573–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schmalensee R (1981) Output and welfare implications of monopolistic third-degree price discrimination. Am Econ Rev 71:242–247Google Scholar
  20. Stecklow S (1996) Expensive lesson. Wall St J, 1 AprilGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson F, Zumeta W (2001) Effects of key state policies on private colleges and universities: sustaining private-sector capacity in the face of higher education access challenge. Econ Educ Rev 20:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tiffany F, Ankrom J (1998) The competitive use of price discrimination by colleges. East Econ J 24:99–110Google Scholar
  23. Varian H (1985) Price discrimination and social welfare. Am Econ Rev 75:870–875Google Scholar
  24. Varian H (2003) Intermediate microeconomics: a modern approach, 6th edn. WW Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Vedder R (2004) Going broke by degree: why college costs too much. American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilkinson R (2005) Aiding students, buying students. Vanderbilt University, NashvilleGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern New Hampshire UniversityManchesterUSA

Personalised recommendations