Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2405.17762

Tuition too high? Blame competition

Abstract

We develop a feedback theory that includes reinforcing and balancing feedback effects that emerge when colleges compete for reputation, applicants, and tuition revenue. The feedback theory is replicated in a formal duopoly model consisting of two competing colleges. An independent ranking entity determines the relative order of the colleges. College applicants choose between the two colleges based on the rankings and the financial aid offered by the colleges. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that competition lowers prices and benefits consumers, our simulations show that competition between academic institutions for resources and reputation leads to tuition escalation that negatively affects students and their families. Four of the five scenarios -- rankings, a capital campaign, facilities improvements, and an excellence campaign -- increase college tuition, institutional debt, and expenditures per student; only the scenario of ignoring the rankings decreases these measures. By referring to the feedback structure of academic competition, the article makes several recommendations for controlling tuition inflation. This article contributes to the literature on the economics of higher education and illustrates the value of feedback economics in developing economic theory.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Oleg V. Pavlov, Evangelos Katsamakas. 2024-05-28. Tuition too high? Blame competition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.07.030

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Computing Endogenous Transformations in Processing Networks: A Dynamic Calibration Approach

Understanding how supply chains endogenously transform requires a parametric model of processing networks with non-neutral substitution elasticities. While the Cascaded CES production function provides a rigorous framework, dynamically calibrating its structural parameters from time-series data constitutes a highly non-convex inverse optimization problem. Since enforcing strict microeconomic concavity renders standard monolithic approaches computationally intractable, we propose a novel structure-exploiting algorithm to bypass this limitation. By leveraging the physical upstreamness topology of the network, our hybrid heuristic effectively breaks the curse of dimensionality inherent in economywide processing networks. Applying this framework to U.S. time-series data, we provide a scalable computational engine to fully endogenize complex supply-chain transformations, ultimately uncovering the elastic origins of asymmetric macroeconomic tail risks.

econ.GN

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Screening Out the Needy: The Effects of SNAP Work Requirements

We examine the effectiveness of work requirements as a screening device in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Work requirements for "able-bodied adults without dependents" were suspended after the Great Recession and gradually reinstated across counties and states in the 2010s. Using linked administrative SNAP and employment data from five states and a triple-differences design, we find that work requirements reduce SNAP participation by seven percent without increasing labor supply and disproportionately screen out low-income individuals. We develop a welfare framework to interpret these results and find that the social costs of work requirements exceed budget savings.

econ.GN